Obama says climate change a matter of national security

[vector7]

Obama says climate change a matter of national security

Tue Dec 9, 2008 5:20pm EST

By Steve Holland

CHICAGO (Reuters) - President-elect Barack Obama said on Tuesday attacking global climate change is a "matter of urgency" that will create jobs as he got advice from Al Gore, who won a Nobel Peace Prize for his work on the issue.

In remarks to reporters, Obama made clear he would adopt an aggressive approach to global warming when he takes over the White House on January 20.

He and Vice President-elect Joe Biden met for nearly two hours with former Vice President Gore at Obama's presidential transition office in Chicago.

"All three of us are in agreement that the time for delay is over, the time for denial is over," Obama said.

Obama hopes addressing climate change can create the kind of jobs that will help pull the U.S. economy out of a deepening recession. He has begun to lay out plans for a massive recovery program to help stimulate the U.S. economy and create about 2.5 million jobs.

He said he would work with Democrats and Republicans, businesses, consumers and others with a stake in the issue to try to reach a consensus on a bold, aggressive approach to tackling the problem.

"This is a matter of urgency and of national security and it has to be dealt with in a serious way. That's what I intend my administration to do," Obama said.

Obama had a willing partner in Gore, who won a Nobel in 2007 for his years-long effort to educate people about the gradual warming of the planet and to argue against those scientists who believe a warming trend is a naturally occurring event.

There was no talk of offering Gore a job in the Obama administration. Gore has indicated he is not interested in a position of climate "czar" or any Cabinet post.

Just two days after Obama won the November 4 election, Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection rolled out a media campaign to push for immediate investments in energy efficiency, renewable power generation like wind and solar technology and the creation of a unified national power grid.

Gore and his group are in line with most U.S. environmental groups, which believe the Obama administration has a chance to stem global warming.

Critics have accused the outgoing Bush administration of stalling on the issue, but the White House insists it is taking steps aimed at addressing the problem without damaging the U.S. economy.

"We have the opportunity now to create jobs all across this country, in all 50 states, to re-power America, to redesign how we use energy, to think about how we are increasing efficiency, to make our economy stronger, make us more safe, reduce our dependence on foreign oil and make us competitive for decades to come, even as we're saving the planet," Obama said.

(Additional reporting by Deborah Charles, editing by David Alexander and David Wiessler)

http://www.reuters.com/article/polit...4B86R920081209

[vector7]

Obama Talks Energy in Meeting With Gore

Barack Obama sits down with Al Gore and Joe Biden at Obama's transition headquarters.

AP

Tuesday, December 09, 2008

CHICAGO -- President-elect Barack Obama on Tuesday praised former Vice President Al Gore's ideas on the environment as one part of helping the nation's struggling economy recovery.

Obama, Gore and Vice President-elect Joe Biden met privately at Obama's transition headquarters here for almost two hours. Obama said they discussed so-called green jobs as a way to boost employment across the country, improve national security by reducing reliance on foreign oil, and reduce energy costs.

Obama said global warming is "not only a problem, but it's also an opportunity."

"We all believe what the scientists have been telling us for years now, that this is a matter of urgency and national security, and it has to be dealt with in a serious way," Obama told reporters and photographers at the end of the closed-door meeting.

"We have the opportunity now to make jobs all across this country, in all 50 states, to repower America. ... We are not going to miss this opportunity," Obama said.

The president-elect's comments closely resembled Gore's plan for an environmental economy, outlined in a speech in July, and he echoed the title of Gore's effort, Repower America.

The president-elect's two guests did not speak to reporters.

Gore sought the presidency in 2000 but lost to then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush in a disputed election that was settled by the Supreme Court. He then became a leader in the movement to draw attention to climate change and global warming. He won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007, and his documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" won an Academy Award the same year.

He lends Obama instant credibility among environmental activists. Aides also said Obama didn't plan to recruit Gore to become a formal part of his administration.

Obama has pledged to use part of his proposed economic stimulus package to develop alternative energies and green technologies. Obama's aides said the private meeting would help shape the president-elect's economic policies.

In April, as Obama was fighting for the nomination, he lavished praise on the former vice president and said he would play a role in dealing with the environment.

"I will make a commitment that Al Gore will be at the table and play a central part in us figuring out how we solve this problem. He's somebody I talk to on a regular basis," Obama said in Pennsylvania. "I'm already consulting with him in terms of these issues, but climate change is real.

It is something we have to deal with now, not 10 years from now, not 20 years from now."

At the time, Gore was one of the most coveted endorsements up for grabs as the primary narrowed to between Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton. Gore was vice president under President Bill Clinton, but remained out of the primary contests.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008...-meeting-gore/

[Beetle]

Release the people in Gitmo and attack climate change.

Hopefully, I will be around to put up with this kind of BS for the next four years, at least.

[samizdat]

This is a matter of urgency and of national security

3 demo gods reinvent the sun.

[vector7]

Study: Global Warming could doom Park City ski resort



PARK CITY, Utah (ABC 4 News) - A study of Park City and Aspen Mountain ski resorts says climate change will mean shorter seasons and less snow on lower slopes.

The study by two Colorado researchers says the ski resorts will see dramatic changes even in a “best case scenario” with a reduction in carbon emissions.

The study was commissioned by Park City and Aspen Mountain and says the resorts will be in fairly good shape until 2030. But after that there will be less snow - or no snow at all - at the base areas, and the season will be shorter because snow will fall later and melt earlier.

If carbon emissions continue to increase, the average temperature at Park City will be 10.4 degrees warmer, and there will likely no snowpack by 2100.

Park City Resort is being proactive in regard to climate change. The resort is buying renewable energy credits for electricity and has cut it’s snowmobile fleet. The resorts snow making machines are new technology that does not use compressed air and only come on when the temperature is below 28 degrees.

http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top...ZD6lWEAlQ.cspx

[vector7]

Global warming alarmist picked as Obama’s science advisor

By Publicola | December 22, 2008


Continuing to staff his nascent administration with left-wing extremists, President-elect Barack Obama this weekend named John Holdren of Harvard University as his science advisor.

Obama called Holdren “one of the most passionate and persistent voices of our time about the growing threat of climate change.”

Commenting on Obama’s science and climate appointments, Todd Kent, a professor of political science at Texas University, said, “He doesn’t want the continual focus on the economy. I think he chose a Saturday address to focus on something else. I think what Obama is going to do is to use environment issues to keep the left wing of the Democratic party in check.”

Obama said climate change and genetic research will be among his “top priorities” when he takes office in January.
Holdren, a professor of environmental policy at Harvard University, led the Pugwash Conferences on science and world affairs, an international organisation of prominent scientists that won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1995.

Holdren served as a member of the advisory council for science and technology policy for then president Bill Clinton in the 1990s.
The pick earned praise in the overseas press, particularly on Al Jazeera’s


Junk science underpins Obama’s policy.

RESOURCES
Obama names senior science team, Al Jazeera, December 20, 2008, http://english.aljazeera.net/news/am...419153305.html

http://www.rlcil.org/2008/12/22/glob...ience-advisor/ English language service.

[vector7]

Obama’s Energy Czar: Socialist Agent For World Government


Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Friday, January 9, 2009

Barack Obama’s “climate czar” Carol Browner has been exposed as being a member of Socialist International, a highly influential group headed by a Bilderberg Group luminary that calls for the implementation of global government, despite Socialist International’s attempts to seemingly “memory-hole” information about Browner on their website.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that Obama and his cabinet are preparing to exploit fearmongering about global warming to push new measures of taxation, regulation and internationalism. Obama himself has vigorously promoted the revival of a bill that would slash carbon emissions by 80 per cent, a move that would inflict a new Great Depression, cost millions of jobs, and sink America to near third world status.

Obama has also publicly stated his intention to create a new infrastructure of “green brigades” and informants to regulate every aspect of our behavior in the name of saving the planet under the guise of a “national civilian security force,” a cadre we are guaranteed will be as strong or stronger than the U.S. Army.

To carry out this agenda, Obama is busy filling his cabinet with extremists who are members of organizations that are openly hostile to America remaining a free market society and a sovereign country.

Carol Browner, who is is slated to be Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change in the Obama Administration, is a member of Socialist International, a group that calls for the institution of “democratic forms of global governance as the foundation for building a peaceful and sustainable world society overall.”

That’s funny, because I don’t remember reading anywhere in the Constitution, the document that Obama will swear to uphold at his inauguration on January 20, about “global governance” or the need to implement it. Indeed, global governance in any form is inherently undemocratic because it centralizes more power into fewer hands.
Socialist International’s charter of principles also states that “A principal task of new global governance must be to ensure that the benefits of global economic growth and the opportunities for economic development are distributed fairly” (a ‘benign’ socialist world government).

The group also calls for a new international financial framework to replace Bretton Woods, a proposal that Obama has staunchly advocated.
Socialist International has deep connections with the Bilderberg Group. The former President of Socialist International, António Guterres, is a Bilderberg member, as is current President George A. Papandreou. Other Socialist International vice-presidents include Israeli Minister of Defense Ehud Barak and Gordon Brown, the current British Prime Minister.
At the Congress of the Socialist International held last June 30-July 2, the organization all but announced its plan to mandate an international tax in the name of combating global warming. “Market solutions alone are insufficient and will not provide the financial support and resources necessary to achieve the required combination of deep emission reduction, adaptation to already changing climate conditions, energy security and equitable and environmentally sound economic development,” according to the group.
Again, that’s bureaucratese,” writes the DC Examiner, “It means that international taxes should be imposed to provide the “resources necessary” to impose what the CSWS repeatedly refers to as a ‘regime” against “global warming.” By appointing Browner to a White House post, Obama has at the least implicitly endorsed an utterly radical socialist agenda for his administration’s environmental policy. The incoming chief executive thus strengthens critics who contend environmental policies aren’t really about protecting endangered species or preserving virgin lands, but rather expanding government power and limiting individual freedom.”

“Conservatives are often accused of scaremongering when they claim left-wing environmentalists are actually socialists hiding behind green disguises. But with Carol Browner, incoming President Barack Obama’s freshly appointed Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change – the so-called White House “Climate Czar” - there is no question about the socialism.”

Oddly enough, as soon as blogs began talking about Browner’s socialist affiliations, the Socialist International website scrubbed from its web site the fact that President-elect Obama’s energy/environment czar was an official with SI.

As the Junk Science blog notes, “If there’s nothing wrong with an acknowledged socialist being a top Obama administration official, then what’s up with the mysterious and Stalinist-like disappearance of Browner from SI’s web site?” Junk Science was able to save a PDF file showing Browner’s photo on the website as of January 8, but you won’t find it there now.

[vector7]

Obama’s Order Is Likely to Tighten Auto Standards

By JOHN M. BRODER and PETER BAKER
Published: January 25, 2009

WASHINGTON — President Obama will direct federal regulators on Monday to move swiftly on an application by California and 13 other states to set strict automobile emission and fuel efficiency standards, two administration officials said Sunday.

The directive makes good on an Obama campaign pledge and signifies a sharp reversal of Bush administration policy. Granting California and the other states the right to regulate tailpipe emissions would be one of the most emphatic actions Mr. Obama could take to quickly put his stamp on environmental policy.

Mr. Obama’s presidential memorandum will order the Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider the Bush administration’s past rejection of the California application. While it stops short of flatly ordering the Bush decision reversed, the agency’s regulators are now widely expected to do so after completing a formal review process.

Once they act, automobile manufacturers will quickly have to retool to begin producing and selling cars and trucks that get higher mileage than the national standard, and on a faster phase-in schedule. The auto companies have lobbied hard against the regulations and challenged them in court.

Mr. Obama will use the announcement to bolster the impression of a sharp break from the Bush era on all fronts, following his decisions last week to close the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba; tighten limits on interrogation tactics by Central Intelligence Agency officers; order plans to withdraw combat forces from Iraq; and reverse President George W. Bush’s financing restrictions on groups that promote or provide abortion overseas, administration officials said.

Beyond acting on the California emissions law, officials said, Mr. Obama will direct the Transportation Department to quickly finalize interim nationwide regulations requiring the automobile industry to increase fuel efficiency standards to comply with a 2007 law, rules that the Bush administration decided at the last minute not to issue.

To avoid losing another year, Mr. Obama will order temporary regulations to be completed by March so automakers have enough time to retool for vehicles sold in 2011. Final standards for later years will be determined by a separate process that under Mr. Obama’s order must take into consideration legal, scientific and technological factors.

He will also order federal departments and agencies to find new ways to save energy and be more environmentally friendly. And he will highlight the elements in his $825 billion economic stimulus plan intended to create jobs around renewable energy.

The announcements, to be made in the East Room, will begin a week of efforts to get the stimulus plan through Congress. The White House hopes the Senate will confirm Timothy F. Geithner as Treasury secretary on Monday, and Mr. Obama plans to travel to Capitol Hill on Tuesday to meet with both Senate and House Republican caucuses and lobby for his stimulus package. Mr. Obama’s aides expect the House to vote on its plan on Wednesday.

But the centerpiece of Monday’s anticipated announcement is Mr. Obama’s directive to the Environmental Protection Agency to begin work immediately on granting California a waiver, under the Clean Air Act, which allows the state, a longtime leader in air quality matters, to set standards for automobile emissions stricter than the national rules.

California has already won numerous waivers for controls on emissions that cause smog, as opposed to global warming.

The Bush administration denied the waiver in late 2007, saying that recently enacted federal mileage rules made the action unnecessary and that allowing California and the 13 other states the right to set their own pollution rules would result in an unenforceable patchwork of environmental law.

The auto companies had advocated a denial, saying a waiver would require them to produce two sets of vehicles, one to meet the strict California standard and another that could be sold in the remaining states.

The Bush administration’s environmental agency director, Stephen L. Johnson, echoed the automakers’ claims in denying California’s application, ignoring the near-unanimous advice of agency lawyers and scientists that the waiver be granted.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, a Republican, wrote to Mr. Obama last week asking him to swiftly reconsider Mr. Bush’s decision. The head of California’s Air Resources Board, Mary D. Nichols, also wrote to the new director of the environmental agency, Lisa P. Jackson, asking for a quick reversal of the Bush policy.

Ms. Nichols said Sunday night that she had not been formally notified that Mr. Obama intended to move toward granting the waiver. But she said, “Assuming that it is favorable to our request, we’re delighted that the president is acting so quickly to reverse one of the worst decisions by the Bush administration and to get the E.P.A. back on track.”

Ms. Jackson indicated in her confirmation hearing this month that she would “aggressively” review California’s application. The environmental agency has routinely granted California such waivers dozens of times over the past 40 years.

The California law, which was originally meant to take effect in the 2009 model year, requires automakers to cut emissions by nearly a third by 2016, four years ahead of the federal timetable. The result would be an increase in fuel efficiency in the American car and light truck fleet to roughly 35 miles per gallon from the current average of 27.

The emissions standards are part of an ambitious California plan to reduce emissions of the gases that are blamed for the heating of the atmosphere. Automotive emissions account for more than one-fifth of all such greenhouse gases.

California was joined in its plea by 13 other states, including New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Oregon and Washington. Three other states have indicated they plan to adopt the California standard. Together they account for about half of the American market for cars and light trucks.

Charles Territo, a spokesman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, said the car makers would prefer a single national standard and needed time to develop new fuel-sipping models. “Applying California standards to several different states would create a complex, confusing and very difficult situation for manufacturers,” he said last week in anticipation of the Obama administration’s announcement.

Mr. Obama wants to use the Monday event to promote the environmental and energy elements of his economic plan, aides said. According to a report released by the White House this weekend, the plan is intended to double renewable energy generating capacity over three years, which would be enough to power six million American homes.

It would also pay for 3,000 miles of new or modernized transmission lines as part of a new national electric grid as well as 40 million “smart meters,” which provide instant readouts of electricity uses, on American homes. The money would also help refurbish two million homes and 75 percent of federal building space to better guard against the weather and conserve enough energy to save low-income families $350 a year and the federal government $2 billion a year, according to the report.

The White House also said that Mr. Obama wanted to start a “clean energy finance initiative” to leverage $100 million in private sector investments over the next three years through loan guarantees and other financial support.

Environmentalists and California Democrats had pressed hard for the tougher automotive standards. Daniel J. Weiss, director of climate strategy at the Center for American Progress in Washington, plans to attend Monday’s announcement and said he was pleased by the quick action.

“This is a complete reversal of President Bush’s policy of censoring or ignoring global warming science,” Mr. Weiss said. “With the fuel economy measures and clean energy investments in the recovery package, President Obama has done more in one week to reduce oil dependence and global warming than George Bush did in eight years.”

The California rules would not take effect immediately, but would require several months of legal review and public comment. The auto companies could challenge them in court, but they have been unsuccessful in previous lawsuits.

The Clean Air Act allows California to seek a waiver from federal rules if it can demonstrate that its own regulations are more stringent, and needed to address its air pollution problems. California’s trend-setting air resources board has done this successfully more than 50 times. Other states can adhere to either the California or the federal standard.

[vector7]

2nd UPDATE:CEOs Want Low CO2 Growth At Heart Of G20 Econ Plans

By Selina Williams
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
Last update: 3/31/2009 1:58:14 PM

LONDON (Dow Jones)--The chief executives of 52 companies Tuesday called on the leaders of the Group of 20 industrialized and developing nations to put low-carbon growth at the heart of economic stimulus measures they will be considering this week.

The heads of companies including banks, airlines, utilities, oil companies and car manufacturers, asked governments to commit 20% of their economic stimulus packages on low carbon growth. "The international community faces the twin challenges of dealing with the most serious global economic crisis since the 1930s and negotiating an ambitious agreement on climate change," the heads of companies said in an open letter to U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown and the G20 leaders he is hosting at a meeting in London Thursday to agree on a coordinated approach to tackling the global economic crisis. "We suggest that the two agendas can, and should be, designed to be mutually reinforcing," the letter continued.

Brown said recently he wanted to use the G20 meeting as an opportunity to construct a clean energy new deal to aid global economic recovery and jobs. Other world leaders have echoed his comments. However, a report from New Economic Foundation released Monday said there has been little evidence that world leaders have boosted spending or incentives. "Figures from HSBC and the IMF (International Monetary Fund) indicate that among the major economies, the greater the proportion of GDP (gross domestic product) spent on bailing out banks coincides with a lower proportion spent on green stimuli," the NEF report said.

The executives, who have formed the Task Force on Low-Carbon Economic Prosperity along with 32 organizations and experts, said governments need to reaffirm commitment to an ambitious goal at Copenhagen, where a successor treaty to the Kyoto climate change agreements will be negotiated. The main focus for the task force will be to identify how to create green jobs in the short-run and deflect economic growth onto a more sustainable, low-carbon path in the longer term.

Deutsche Bank AG (DB) Vice Chairman Caio Koch Weser said there was clear evidence that investment in low-carbon technologies was a good way of creating jobs. "We believe that climate change and its associated mitigation efforts will be a major driver of any economic recovery scenario we can envisage in the coming years and we're positioning ourselves accordingly around the globe," Weser said. Deutsche Bank is one of the companies in the task force.

Governments also need to outline key policies and activities to provide a predictable framework for businesses and reinforce green stimulus measures. Policy framework must include a market mechanism for carbon, energy efficiency measures and research and development, a statement from the task force said. Broader activities must include the creation of smart grids, international coordination on carbon capture and storage and technology and finance cooperation between developed and developing countries, the statement added.

-By Selina Williams, Dow Jones Newswires; +44 207 842 9262; selina.williams@dowjones.com
(END) Dow Jones Newswires

[vector7]

2nd UPDATE:CEOs Want Low CO2 Growth At Heart Of G20 Econ Plans

By Selina Williams
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
Last update: 3/31/2009 1:58:14 PM

LONDON (Dow Jones)--The chief executives of 52 companies Tuesday called on the leaders of the Group of 20 industrialized and developing nations to put low-carbon growth at the heart of economic stimulus measures they will be considering this week.

The heads of companies including banks, airlines, utilities, oil companies and car manufacturers, asked governments to commit 20% of their economic stimulus packages on low carbon growth. "The international community faces the twin challenges of dealing with the most serious global economic crisis since the 1930s and negotiating an ambitious agreement on climate change," the heads of companies said in an open letter to U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown and the G20 leaders he is hosting at a meeting in London Thursday to agree on a coordinated approach to tackling the global economic crisis. "We suggest that the two agendas can, and should be, designed to be mutually reinforcing," the letter continued.

Brown said recently he wanted to use the G20 meeting as an opportunity to construct a clean energy new deal to aid global economic recovery and jobs. Other world leaders have echoed his comments. However, a report from New Economic Foundation released Monday said there has been little evidence that world leaders have boosted spending or incentives. "Figures from HSBC and the IMF (International Monetary Fund) indicate that among the major economies, the greater the proportion of GDP (gross domestic product) spent on bailing out banks coincides with a lower proportion spent on green stimuli," the NEF report said.

The executives, who have formed the Task Force on Low-Carbon Economic Prosperity along with 32 organizations and experts, said governments need to reaffirm commitment to an ambitious goal at Copenhagen, where a successor treaty to the Kyoto climate change agreements will be negotiated. The main focus for the task force will be to identify how to create green jobs in the short-run and deflect economic growth onto a more sustainable, low-carbon path in the longer term.

Deutsche Bank AG (DB) Vice Chairman Caio Koch Weser said there was clear evidence that investment in low-carbon technologies was a good way of creating jobs. "We believe that climate change and its associated mitigation efforts will be a major driver of any economic recovery scenario we can envisage in the coming years and we're positioning ourselves accordingly around the globe," Weser said. Deutsche Bank is one of the companies in the task force.

Governments also need to outline key policies and activities to provide a predictable framework for businesses and reinforce green stimulus measures. Policy framework must include a market mechanism for carbon, energy efficiency measures and research and development, a statement from the task force said. Broader activities must include the creation of smart grids, international coordination on carbon capture and storage and technology and finance cooperation between developed and developing countries, the statement added.

-By Selina Williams, Dow Jones Newswires; +44 207 842 9262; selina.williams@dowjones.com
(END) Dow Jones Newswires

[vector7]

House Democrats' bill takes aim at global warming
Bill also boosts renewable energy sources, promotes "green jobs"
By Robert Schroeder, MarketWatch
Last update: 1:18 p.m. EDT March 31, 2009

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- House Democrats released draft legislation Tuesday taking aim at cutting global warming pollution, a top priority of President Barack Obama and an issue that will spark intense debate with Republicans and businesses. The wide-ranging bill, nearly 650 pages long, also contains measures promoting renewable energy, energy efficiency and "green jobs."

Many of the bill's provisions dovetail with Obama's campaign goals and are an ambitious attempt to re-write environmental and energy policy. "This legislation will create millions of clean energy jobs, put America on the path to energy independence, and cut global warming pollution," said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman. Waxman, D-Calif., and Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., unveiled the draft bill Tuesday. Waxman and Markey say the committee will finish considering the bill by Memorial Day. But a long fight is likely over some of the bill's provisions including on global warming.

The bill would set up a market-based program for slashing global warming pollution from electric utilities, oil companies, large industrial sources and other entities. It gradually aims to cut pollution, up to a maximum of 83% below 2005 levels in 2050. Read a summary of the bill.

Environmental groups were mostly receptive of the bill. "We applaud the draft bill's strong clean energy standards that will transform our economy and the strong pollution-reduction requirements that reflect the latest climate science," said Emily Figdor, federal global warming program director at Environment America. But she added the group is disappointed that the bill includes "sky-high levels of carbon offsets," that make emissions reductions less certain.

The House Energy Committee's top Republican slammed the draft bill and said it will result in more lost jobs in an already-weak U.S. economy. "Tuesday's cap-and-trade bill marks a triumph of fear over good sense and science, and it couldn't come at a worse time because it proposes to save the planet by sacrificing the economy," said Rep. Joe Barton of Texas. "It is so proudly ignorant of the daily economic reality faced by working people that I do not believe it could survive a vote in either the House or Senate just now," said Barton. He said Republicans will offer an alternative measure.

Democrats also want to impose stiff requirements for renewable energy. The bill requires retail electricity suppliers to meet percentages of their loads with renewables, rising from 6% in 2012 to 25% in 2025. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called the bill "historic" and "overdue." "We will continue to hear the best ideas about how to tackle the challenge from a broad range of stakeholders, with the intention of having legislation on the House floor this year," said Pelosi on Tuesday.

[vector7]

Obama looks at Climate engineering

WASHINGTON (AP) - The president's new science adviser said Wednesday that global warming is so dire, the Obama administration is discussing radical technologies to cool Earth's air. John Holdren told The Associated Press in his first interview since being confirmed last month that the idea of geoengineering the climate is being discussed. One such extreme option includes shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays. Holdren said such an experimental measure would only be used as a last resort.

"It's got to be looked at," he said. "We don't have the luxury of taking any approach off the table."

Holdren outlined several "tipping points" involving global warming that could be fast approaching. Once such milestones are reached, such as complete loss of summer sea ice in the Arctic, it increases chances of "really intolerable consequences," he said.

Twice in a half-hour interview, Holdren compared global warming to being "in a car with bad brakes driving toward a cliff in the fog."

At first, Holdren characterized the potential need to technologically tinker with the climate as just his personal view. However, he went on to say he has raised it in administration discussions.

Holdren, a 65-year-old physicist, is far from alone in taking geoengineering more seriously. The National Academy of Science is making climate tinkering the subject of its first workshop in its new multidiscipline climate challenges program. The British parliament has also discussed the idea.

The American Meteorological Society is crafting a policy statement on geoengineering that says "it is prudent to consider geoengineering's potential, to understand its limits and to avoid rash deployment."

Last week, Princeton scientist Robert Socolow told the National Academy that geoengineering should be an available option in case climate worsens dramatically.

But Holdren noted that shooting particles into the air—making an artificial volcano as one Nobel laureate has suggested—could have grave side effects and would not completely solve all the problems from soaring greenhouse gas emissions. So such actions could not be taken lightly, he said.

Still, "we might get desperate enough to want to use it," he added.

Another geoengineering option he mentioned was the use of so-called artificial trees to suck carbon dioxide—the chief human-caused greenhouse gas—out of the air and store it. At first that seemed prohibitively expensive, but a re-examination of the approach shows it might be less costly, he said.

[Ryan Ruck]

This "man" thinks he is God...

[vector7]

Look out! Cap and trade.

EPA Says Greenhouse Gases a Danger, Opening Way for Regulation

By Catherine Dodge

April 17 (Bloomberg) -- The Environmental Protection Agency said greenhouse gases pose a danger to the public, opening the way for new U.S. regulation of cars, power plants and factories.

The agency’s proposed finding today marks the first formal action by the federal government toward restricting carbon dioxide emissions that climate scientists say cause global warming.

The decision may lead to increased regulation of General Motors Corp. and other automakers and utilities such as American Electric Power Co., as well as manufacturers led by chemical plants and steelmakers. It also puts pressure on Congress to back legislation on greenhouse-gas emissions, rather than letting the EPA set all the rules, said David Bookbinder of the Sierra Club.

“Congress has the choice of allowing the EPA to go forward with this under the Clean Air Act or writing tailor-made legislation,” Bookbinder, the environmentalist group’s chief climate counsel, said in an interview before the announcement.

The so-called endangerment finding, which won’t become final until after a public review, is based on a Supreme Court ruling in April 2007. The court said the government could restrict heat-trapping gases under the Clean Air Act if it found them a danger to the public health and welfare, and it ordered the EPA to make a determination.

Former President George W. Bush’s administration declined to act, passing on the issue to President Barack Obama.

Carbon-Constrained Society
“Six months from now, the nation could be a fundamentally different place where we’re living in a carbon-constrained society,” said Roger Martella, general counsel at the EPA under Bush. “It’s going to be a new challenge that industry has not had to address before.”

While the court case concerned new cars and trucks, the Clean Air Act directs the EPA to limit emissions from other sources such as power plants if a finding is made that greenhouse gases pose a danger, said Bookbinder.

The EPA’s proposed rules for vehicles could come by the end of the year, Bookbinder said. Proposed rules for power plants would probably follow early next year, he said. After that, it would be several months to a year before any regulations take effect.

Power plants account for about 40 percent of carbon-dioxide emissions, and vehicles make up about 30 percent, according to government figures.
The U.S. produces about 20 percent of the planet’s man-made carbon-dioxide emissions, according to Energy Department figures.

Policy Priority
Obama has made curbing greenhouse gases a priority. He has called on Congress to pass legislation that would cap carbon- dioxide emissions.

That plan would require industrial polluters to get permits for emissions.

Under a so-called cap-and-trade system, companies could then buy and sell emissions credits on a market. The president’s budget plan assumes almost $650 billion in revenue from such a system from 2012 to 2019.

Legislation proposed by Democratic Representatives Henry Waxman of California and Edward Markey of Massachusetts would cut greenhouse-gas emissions 20 percent by 2020. By 2050, emissions would be reduced 83 percent from 2005 levels under the plan.

Markey has said the EPA’s action would increase pressure on industry to support legislation.
Critics of a cap-and-trade system, such as Republican Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, say it would raise energy costs to consumers and businesses and harm the economy.

Regulatory Reach
An endangerment finding “could extend EPA’s regulatory reach into every corner of the economy,” Inhofe said at a congressional hearing April 2.

Since Obama took office in January, the EPA has taken steps to prepare for regulating greenhouse gases. The agency proposed in March requiring factories to give annual reports to the federal government on emissions.
The first reports would be submitted in 2011 and cover emissions in 2010, according to the proposal. Car and engine makers would begin their reports for 2011 models.

The endangerment case goes back to 1999, when environmental organizations asked the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases from cars and trucks.

In 2003, the Bush administration’s EPA said that it wouldn’t regulate such emissions from new vehicles, citing “substantial scientific uncertainty” about the effects of climate change on human health and the environment and about the best means to deal with the issue.

A dozen states, including California and Massachusetts, joined the environmental groups and sued the EPA.

The Supreme Court in 2007 ordered Bush administration environmental officials to reconsider their refusal and said the EPA didn’t follow the requirements of the Clean Air Act.

[vector7]

Pelosi Says U.S. House Will Pass First Carbon Limit

By Catherine Dodge and Tina Seeley
April 21, 2009 15:15 EDT

April 21 (Bloomberg) -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi pledged to push legislation through the chamber this year that would for the first time place a cap on carbon dioxide emitted from power plants and factories. The measure will be the most complex Congress will face and “will pass,” Pelosi told reporters at a press conference.

The Energy and Commerce Committee is holding a hearing today on a proposal to establish a cap-and-trade system that would require companies to get permits for their emissions. The draft legislation, by Chairman Henry Waxman, a California Democrat, and Democrat Edward Markey of Massachusetts is intended to reduce greenhouse gases that climate scientists say contribute to global warming.

President Barack Obama is among the Democrats who back a cap-and-trade system, similar to one in Europe, in which factories must get emission permits, which they can sell if they reduce their pollution.

Some Republicans, such as Representative Joe Barton of Texas, say such a system would increase energy costs to businesses and consumers and harm the economy. Lawmakers are scheduled this week to hear from more than 50 witnesses, including corporate executives, Cabinet secretaries and environmentalists.

Barton and the other Republicans on the committee want more hearings on the measure. “Your discussion draft affects every element of our economy and certainly deserves greater hearing treatment than a mere three-day marathon of topics,” the lawmakers said today in a letter to Waxman and Markey.

20 Percent

Waxman and Markey’s plan is designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 20 percent by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050. The cuts are from 2005 levels.

Lawmakers will debate whether to auction or give away for free pollution credits companies can trade on carbon markets. There will also be discussion of what to do with any money raised from the permits, and how to keep U.S. companies competitive with rivals in countries that don’t have similar environmental restrictions.

Two Democrats, Michigan Representative John Dingell, who once headed the committee, and Representative Rick Boucher, from Virginia’s coal-producing region, have called for reaching the pollution goals at a slower pace. Boucher also has said the permits should be given free to utilities and manufacturers.

Revenue Estimate

Obama’s budget outline estimates revenue of about $650 billion from 2012 to 2019 from a cap-and-trade program and proposes to use most of it to help fund middle-class tax cuts. Waxman said it should be used to invest in green technology, help consumers offset higher energy costs and give aid to hard-hit industries, such as coal.

The hearings follow the Environmental Protection Agency’s finding last week that greenhouse gases pose a danger to the public. That finding opens the way for new U.S. regulation of cars, power plants and factories and prods Congress to craft rules that are more flexible.

The EPA’s finding “serves to escalate pressure on Congress to prepare and pass legislation regulating greenhouse gases, or otherwise see such regulations designed and implemented by the EPA without input from Congress,” Hugh Wynne, senior analyst for Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. LLC, said in a note yesterday.

The 648-page draft bill, released last month by Waxman and Markey, includes a national requirement that a quarter of U.S. electricity supplies come from renewable sources by 2025. It also adds new energy efficiency requirements and promotes clean transportation fuels, while offering financial support to car companies to build electric vehicles.

Store Carbon

It incorporates a proposal by Boucher to fund projects that capture and store carbon dioxide emissions from power plants that burn fossil fuel, including coal.

Waxman has scheduled a committee vote on the measure the week of May 11.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson is scheduled to testify tomorrow, along with Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. Former Vice President Al Gore, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for his efforts on global warming, is scheduled to testify April 24.

[vector7]

Obama calls for 'market-based cap' on carbon emissions

'No question' U.S. must regulate pollution, Obama says

By Robert Schroeder, MarketWatch
Last update: 2:25 p.m. EDT April 22, 2009

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- President Barack Obama on Wednesday called for a "market-based" cap on carbon emissions, saying such a cap would reduce harmful greenhouse gases and spur investment in clean energy. "There is no question that we have to regulate carbon pollution," Obama said in remarks prepared for delivery in Newton, Iowa. "The only question is how we do so."

Obama spoke after his Cabinet officials urged Congress to cap greenhouse gas emissions in testimony on Wednesday, as lawmakers began what's likely to be a lengthy and difficult governmental effort to reduce carbon pollution in the U.S.

Appearing at a hearing of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood all called for market-based caps on greenhouse-gas pollution.

Obama said that by putting caps on carbon emissions, the U.S. can address what he called "all the facets of the energy crisis: lowering our dependence on foreign oil, reducing our use of fossil fuels, and promoting new industries right here in America."

On Capitol Hill, the House Energy Committee is holding four days of hearings this week on a sweeping energy bill that includes gradually reducing greenhouse gases beginning in 2012, up to 83% below 2005 levels in 2050. None of the officials explicitly endorsed those levels, however.

Obama said carbon pollution would have a value under a cap system, and companies would buy and sell the rights to produce it. "In this way," he said, "a company can determine for itself whether it makes sense to spend the money to become cleaner or more efficient, or to spend the money on a certain amount of allowable pollution."

Republicans resist

Republicans and some Democrats are strongly resisting the bill and characterizing it as a tax on consumers and industry. "House Democrats are beginning their push for a cap-and-trade scheme that makes big promises, but amounts to little more than a national energy tax that will destroy countless jobs and raise energy prices on families and small businesses already struggling during this recession," said House Republican Leader John Boehner in a statement on Wednesday.

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., the chief sponsor of the House bill, said Wednesday that claims by critics that controlling greenhouse gases will undermine the economy ignore the financial benefits of shifting to cleaner energy that does not contribute to global warming, according to the Associated Press.

Jackson echoed those comments in her prepared testimony.

"The 'no, we can't' crowd will spin out doomsday scenarios about runaway costs," she said in testimony. "But EPA's available economic modeling indicates that the investment Americans would make to implement the cap-and-trade program of the American Clean Energy and Security Act would be modest compared to the benefits that science and plain common sense tell us a comprehensive energy and climate policy will deliver," she said.

Meanwhile, the committee's Republicans are asking Waxman for more hearings about the bill, including on carbon offsets and how the EPA came to its recent ruling that greenhouse gases may harm health and welfare.

The decision, made last week, would give the EPA authority under the 1970 Clean Air Act to adopt measures to reduce emissions even if Congress declines to act. But the agency would still have to take several additional steps before it could issue a final ruling and propose regulations.

[vector7]

Cap and Trade a ‘Declaration of War,’ Say Republicans
Friday, May 01, 2009
By Josiah Ryan, Staff Writer


House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) (AP Photo)

(CNSNews.com) - The congressional Democrats’ cap-and-trade plan to tax carbon emissions could cost every American family as much as $3,100 a year and is equivalent to a “declaration of war on the Midwest,” Republican lawmakers told CNSNews.com this week.

But Democrats disputed the Republicans’ cost figure and said the plan can be accomplished without imposing a net cost on the American people.

In general, under cap and trade, the amount of carbon that energy producers emit is capped. They can exceed that cap through the purchase, i.e., “trade,” of carbon permits. The money for those permits would be collected by the government and presumably redistributed under a system still being crafted.

“The reality is the cap-and-trade legislation offered by the Democrats amounts to an economic declaration of war on the Midwest by liberals on Capitol Hill,” Chairman of the House Republican Conference Mike Pence (R-Ind.) told CNSNews.com.

“We are going to increase costs on every American with this plan -- and the other thing we need to keep in mind is the millions of American jobs we are going to put at risk if we impose this new tax on American industry when our competitors around the world will not,” House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) told CNSNews.com in a press conference on Thursday. “It’s pretty clear.”

Both Pence and Boehner have said they estimate that, in total, the Democrats’ cap-and-trade legislation could cost each American family up to $3,100 a year. While lawmakers are still finalizing a cap-and-trade bill, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) recently introduced the draft of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009.

According to Boehner's office, the $3,100 number is based on a Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) study released earlier this year that examined cap-and-trade legislation from 2007. Republicans believe the new legislation for 2009, in its final form, will be similar to the 2007 bill.

“We took MIT’s own estimate of a key cap-and-trade bill from the 110th Congress (S. 309), cosponsored by then-Senator Obama, that said S. 309 would generate $366 billion in revenues in 2015,” Boehner's office told CNSNews.com. “We took MIT’s own number – $366 billion – and divided that by the number of U.S. households. … Using this formula, you get roughly $3,000 per household.”

But Democrats deny their legislation will cost the taxpayers anywhere near that much money, and some said the legislation’s goals it can be achieved with no net cost to the taxpayer. Further, one of the MIT study’s author’s disagreed with the Republicans’ interpretation of the costs.

“That is nearly 10 times the correct estimate, which is approximately $340,” wrote MIT Prof. John Reilly, one of the authors of the disputed report, in an Apr. 1 letter to Boehner.

In reference to the $3,100 figure, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, said, “That’s not true at all.”

“In fact, the Environmental Projection Agency estimate says that it will be about $40 or $50 per family per year,” Waxman told CNSNews.com.

Waxman was referencing an EPA study of a “discussion draft” of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, the Waxman-Markey plan.

“They [Republicans] are taking research and wildly misrepresenting it,” Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), chairman of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, told CNSNews.com. “It is not true remotely.”

Blumenauer and Reilly also said that Republicans are not taking into account the point that the federal government plans to return to the American people part of the money paid by corporations for the right to release carbon into the atmosphere -- and that the government also plans to provide Americans with goods and services funded by the cap-and-trade program.


Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee (AP Photo)

“They are misrepresenting research and it assumes that this money is not going back to communities,” Blumenauer told CNSNews.com. “Part of it will come right back to individual families, part of it will be used to strengthen the environment. … We want some of it to be spent to help communities with issues of transportation, the natural environment, energy conservation. There are lots of things here that are going to come right back to individuals and their communities.”

“It is very likely that the net cost when we are done with this is going to be a net positive cost because we already waste more energy than any country in the world,” he said.

“I have the idea that they [the American public] should lose nothing,” Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means, told CNSNews.com. “If you are in the tax system, you should be reimbursed. If you are not in the tax system, it could be a check every month.”

In his letter to Boehner, Prof. Reilly wrote, “We assumed in the analysis we did that the revenue is returned to households.” Reilly also noted that the cap-and-trade plan would reduce the number of jobs in fossil fuel industries, such as the coal, natural gas, and oil industries.

“The higher energy prices encourage reductions in energy use by increasing the payback on improvements in energy efficiency, and through such investments households can avoid paying more for energy,” wrote Reilly. “Jobs and wages in fossil fuel industries are likely to decline but job opportunities will increase in industries that produce alternative energy sources or that provide ways to save energy.”

Republicans who spoke with CNSNews.com defended their $3,100 estimate and argued that it is unlikely that money going through the hands of the federal government will make it back intact to the taxpayers.

“Anyone who thinks you can pay $3,100 to the federal government and thinks you can get that money back completely in services -- like I said -- he may go to M-I-T but he is an N-U-T.,” Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.) told CNSNews.com.

“No, there is no chance this will not add to the net cost for taxpayers,” he said.

“This MIT study was pretty clear in terms of what this professor thought on the costs,” Boehner told CNSNews.com.

Republicans were also quick to note that, while on the campaign trail last year, President Obama himself predicted energy prices would skyrocket under a cap-and-trade program.

On Jan. 17, 2008, Obama was interviewed by the San Francisco Chronicle and he said: “You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know, under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I'm capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it -- whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.”

[vector7]

Pelosi appeals for China's help on climate change

By AUDRA ANG – 8 hours ago

BEIJING (AP) — U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi urged Beijing on Thursday to cooperate on climate change, calling a safe environment a basic human right.

Speaking at Beijing's elite Tsinghua University, Pelosi continued the theme of her five-day China trip — that combating global warming represented a new challenge that both governments must tackle jointly.

"We are all in this together," Pelosi told an audience of about 200 students and faculty who applauded enthusiastically throughout the 45-minute session. "The impact of climate change is a tremendous risk to the security and well-being of our countries."

Pelosi's trip has been notable for skirting human rights and the fierce public criticisms she has frequently leveled at the authoritarian government.

The trip comes as President Barack Obama's administration has emphasized climate change as a new area where the two governments can broaden already wide-ranging engagement. The two countries are the biggest emitters of the carbon gases that are causing warming temperatures. Both governments are staking out positions ahead of a meeting late this year in Copenhagen that will try to forge agreement on targets and steps to reduce carbon emissions.

In a meeting Wednesday, the head of China's national legislature, Wu Bangguo, told Pelosi that climate change was a common challenge and that Beijing stood ready to work with Washington.

Turning around her usual criticisms about human rights, Pelosi linked global warming to environmental justice, saying the right to a clean environment is also a human right.

"I do see this opportunity for climate change to be ... a game-changer," she said at Tsinghua. "It's a place where human rights — looking out for the needs of the poor in terms of climate change and healthy environment — are a human right."

To achieve this, Pelosi said governments would have to make decisions and choices based on science.

"They also have to do it with openness, transparency and accountability to the people," she said. "Everyone has to have their situation improved by it."

In answering a question from a student about how Pelosi was going to get Americans to cut back on their carbon emissions, the leading Democratic lawmaker said it was important to educate children on how to conserve energy and for citizens to build more environmentally friendly homes.

"We have so much room for improvement," she said. "Every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory ... of how we are taking responsibility."

Pelosi, who arrived Sunday, brought with her five members of a House committee on energy policy and global warming. A bill that would impose the first U.S. limits on greenhouse gas emissions was approved by a House committee last week, a step being considered by the full House later this year.

Pelosi's visit is part of a flurry of contacts between Washington and Beijing that highlight their wide-ranging cooperation on issues including North Korea's nuclear program and combatting the global economic slump.

Next week, U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner travels to Beijing.

[vector7]

Obama urges passage of "historic" climate change bill

Tue Jun 23, 2009 4:16pm EDT

* House Democrats aim for passage on Friday
* Farm-state lawmakers holding out for more changes
* Billions in U.S. aid announced for efficient vehicles

By Richard Cowan

WASHINGTON, June 23 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama on Tuesday urged Congress to pass "historic legislation" to fight global warming, prompting his fellow Democrats in the House of Representatives to aim for a vote on Friday on the bill to reduce industrial emissions of carbon dioxide.

At a midday White House press conference, Obama said the climate change bill moving through the House would "transform the way we produce and use energy in America."

With incentives to encourage utilities, manufacturers and other companies to switch from higher-polluting oil and coal to cleaner energy alternatives, Obama said the legislation would spark a "transformation that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and confront the carbon pollution that threatens our planet."

Even with Obama's support, the climate change bill faces a tough road: Democratic leaders in the House are cajoling farm-state lawmakers and other moderates from their own party to support the measure. Without such support, it is unclear whether the House could approve the bill.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer was cautiously optimistic, telling reporters, it is "quite possible and maybe even probable" the bill will be debated on Friday and pass.

With House passage, the climate change debate would shift to the Senate, which has not yet crafted its own bill and where passage is more complicated than in the House because Republicans could use delaying tactics.

As Obama was leading the charge for climate change legislation cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 17 percent by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050 (from 2005 levels), his administration acted on another clean energy front.

Nearly $8 billion in Energy Department loans were announced to help automakers retool plants so they can build more fuel efficient vehicles, including electric cars and autos with improved gasoline engines.

In pushing companies to reduce their carbon emissions, the climate change bill would encourage the use of alternative energy such as solar and wind, while promoting technologies to capture and store emissions from coal-burning plants.

Supporting that effort, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced that the government had awarded its first leases for offshore wind development off the Atlantic Ocean coasts of New Jersey and Delaware.

While large U.S. companies such as Duke Energy, Dow and Alcoa, have embraced the broad goals of the House climate bill, other industries criticized it.

The American Petroleum Institute, representing major U.S. oil companies, called the House legislation "fundamentally flawed" and said it would "cost Americans billions of dollars in higher costs, kill jobs and will not deliver the environmental benefits promised."

This week, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated the House Democrats' climate bill could cost households an average $175 a year in added costs, while the poor would enjoy a $40 annual benefit from rebates and other breaks. Republicans had warned of $3,100 in price increases yearly and severe job losses.

Obama's Environmental Protection Agency estimated an average household cost per year of $80-$111, or 22 cents to 30 cents a day.

Meanwhile, Republican Representative Jim Sensenbrenner, an outspoken critic of the Democratic climate change bill, asked the Justice Department to investigate whether General Motors and Chrysler can legally lobby in favor of global warming legislation because of the government bailouts of those firms.

GM is a member of the United States Climate Action Partnership, which has advocated climate legislation along the lines of the House bill.

Hoyer said he thought Democrats could resolve their disagreements within the next day, setting up Friday's House vote.

Farm-state lawmakers already have succeeded in adding help for rural electricity companies and talks reportedly were continuing on farmer land-use issues. (Additional reporting by Charles Abbott, Tom Doggett, Ayesha Rascoe, Kevin Krolicki, John Crawley and Jon Hurdle)

© Thomson Reuters 2009 All rights reserved

[vector7]

Vote is this Friday on the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009

The House of Representatives this week begins considering the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 — “cap-and-trade” energy legislation that aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by giving the federal government the power to limit the amount of oil, gasoline, coal, and other fossil fuels used by American utilities and industry.

In reality, this cap-and-trade plan is nothing more than a hidden tax that The Heritage Foundation has estimated could increase the average American family’s energy bill by $1,500 annually!

That’s why I urge you, before you do anything else today, to tell your U.S. Representative to vote NO on the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009.

Introduced by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.), the so-called Waxman-Markey bill will place a severe regulatory burden on American businesses, which will increase their costs and reduce their competitiveness, hurting our nation’s economy.

These higher operating costs for utilities, oil companies, and industry will ultimately trickle down to individual Americans, and you and I will pay an estimated 74 percent more for gasoline, 90 percent more for electricity, and 55 percent more on our natural gas bills. And that’s not the end of it. We’ll also pay more for every product that requires fossil fuels in its manufacture or transportation!

The Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade plan will also grow the size and cost of government by requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to establish a greenhouse gas (GHG) registry, create a GHG emission allowance transfer system, and set emission allowances from 2012-2050.

This army of new bureaucrats will eventually control every aspect of industrial, commercial, and individual energy use. What’s more, the cap-and-trade program will necessarily be ripe for political favoritism and corruption, as politicians and bureaucrats manipulate the system for favored industries.

Jeff, climatologist Chip Knappenberger has estimated that the 83 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions mandated under Waxman-Markey by 2050 will result in a drop in climate temperature of only nine-hundredths of 1 degree Fahrenheit. That’s equivalent to just two years of avoided global warming.

In short, the Waxman-Markey bill will achieve virtually no environmental pay-offs, while imposing huge costs on our businesses, our economy, and each and every one of us as a taxpayer and consumer.

Please tell your U.S. Representative today to vote NO on the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill)!

Sincerely,

Thomas A. Schatz
President

Contributor's website: http://cagw.org

P.S. JEFFREY, CCAGW members like you have already sent 11,861 letters to the House of Representatives opposing the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill. But to win this battle, we need to get as many Americans as possible to tell their elected representatives in the next two days to vote against this hidden tax increase that will hurt American businesses, families, and our economy, while expanding the size and power of the federal bureaucracy. Please help us by forwarding this message to your friends and neighbors and asking them to take action. ***

The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW) is the lobbying arm of Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW), the nation's largest taxpayer watchdog organization with more than one million members and supporters nationwide. CCAGW is a 501(c)(4) nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that lobbies for legislation to eliminate waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in government. Contributions to CCAGW are not tax-deductible for federal income tax purposes. For more information about CCAGW, visit www.ccagw.org.

Make a contribution today to help CCAGW wage and win this battle against the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill.