In the climate and energy debate, conservatives continue to argue that the only solution to high gasoline prices is drill, drill, drill, especially in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (see Eco-Gingrich says, “Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay More”). This argument is false, false, false.

The Administration’s own Energy Information Administration found differently in a 2004 Congressionally-requested “Analysis of Oil and Gas Production in ANWR” (see “Note to Bush, media: Opening ANWR cuts gas prices one penny in 2025“). I pointed out then that the 2004 analysis was based on low oil prices, and that higher oil prices would raise the savings.

A May 2008 re-analysis by EIA, “Analysis of Crude Oil Production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge,” in fact found

Read more

On May 27, the Wall Street Journal editorial board wrote about the Climate Security Act:

Warner-Lieberman would impose the most extensive government reorganization of the American economy since the 1930s.

A week later, Sen. Jim Inhofe changed “reorganization” to “expansion,” writing in the Wall Street Journal that the climate legislation “will create the largest expansion of the federal government since FDR’s New Deal.”

Conservative senators have been coordinated on the Senate floor in repeating the Wall Street Journal-Inhofe message:

Judd Gregg (R-NH): These allowances which really are a consumption tax in my opinion will essentially be used to greatly expand the government.

John Cornyn (R-TX): This is the kind of huge expansion in government power over our lives and over the economy that is really unprecedented in our country, and I suggest is the wrong solution — is a — is a wrong answer to the — to what confronts us today.

George Voinovich (R-OH): I feel it is overly aggressive, outpacing what technology can provide and thus assuring economic pain on the country and it is overly bureaucratic and cumbersome in its implementation, representing an unprecedented expansion of government power and a massive bureaucratic intrusion in American lives that will have a profound effect on businesses, communities and families.

The right wing is still upset with Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal, and wants to go back to an era without the system of labor, health, economic, and environmental protections that built the American middle class. They fear that the American public will realize that a New Green Deal of progressive policies could restore our economic future. Yesterday, Chuck Grassley (R-IA) complained:

The bill before us creates a raft of new government spending programs.

He and his fellow conservatives have put us on a sinking ship, are burning the life preservers, and won’t even let us build a “raft.” As David Roberts writes, “Unless we want to go down with the ship, we need to start building an ark.”

UPDATE: Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) shut down the Senate floor this afternoon by forcing the Senate clerk to read the entire text of the legislation. McConnell alleged that the Democratic leadership “refused to honor its commitments” and push through a significant number of judicial nominees.

Our guest blogger is Daniel J. Weiss, a Senior Fellow and the Director of Climate Strategy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Republican Presidential nominee apparent John McCain brags about his leadership on climate change. He even taunted Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton when he said:

I don’t know what their position is because I haven’t seen them show any particular commitment in the U.S. Senate or elsewhere [on climate change]. I have proposed legislation and fought for amendments.

With all of his bragging about global warming, you would think Sen. McCain would be at the center of this week’s Senate’s debate over the Climate Security Act, sponsored by Barbara Boxer (D-CA) Joe Lieberman (I-CT), and John Warner (R-VA). Unfortunately, he doesn’t plan to participate in the debate, and opposes the bill because it lacks big bucks to build nuclear power plants.

How come the Straight Talk Express can’t find the U.S. Senate for this critical debate?

Is it because Sen. McCain has received more money from the special interests that oppose this bill than all but one other member of the Senate? He has received over $2 million from oil, coal, utility, auto, chemical and nuclear companies from the 1990 cycle to the first quarter of 2008. In fact, of this total, McCain received nearly two-thirds of it — $1.2 million — since he began his presidential quest 18 months ago. And like Senator McCain, these interests and the trade associations they fund oppose the Climate Security Act.

*See update below for revised 2008 figure.

Since McCain began running for president in 2007, he missed all the important clean energy votes. He did make sure to wink at big oil by announcing he would have supported its existing unjustified tax breaks had he been around. The bipartisan effort to close these loopholes failed by one vote. And after he missed the opportunity to become the deciding vote to extend tax incentives for efficiency and wind and solar power by adding it to the stimulus package, he gave a nod to big coal and huge utility conglomerates by announcing he would have opposed this measure too.

Sen. McCain plans to use his support for reductions in global warming pollution as a central element in his effort to distinguish himself from President Bush. On June 3rd, he proclaimed, “The next President must be willing to break completely with the energy policies not just of the Bush Administration, but the administrations that preceded his.” But Sen. McCain is a leader in campaign donations from the same interests who helped Bush write his energy plan that brought us $4 gallon gasoline. And like the Bush administration, he also opposes the Climate Security Act.

Frequently, Sen. McCain has lectured his colleagues about the corrupting nature of campaign contributions and lobbyists. He preached that “Our government must be free from corrupting influences, both real and perceived.” A large part of his reputation as a “maverick” rests on this issue. Yet his campaign is run by lobbyists. And he has received more campaign cash from big energy companies than 98 other senators, and then joins their opposition to the Climate Security Act. Sen. McCain appears to be nothing more than another senator influenced by special interests -– a prime example of the Washington influence system that he bemoans.

Read the full report — PACing Away the Climate Security Act?

UPDATE 6/17: McCain’s oil & gas industry take for the 2008 cycle, including contributions reported on May 21, has risen to $723,777, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, bringing his career receipts to $981,804.

Kudos to EnergyEnvironmentTV for posting the entire Senate debate on Boxer-Lieberman-Warner in individual segments (here). Not that I can actually recommend you listen to many of these. But, like 7-11, it’s nice to know they’re there.

Yes, forcing 30 hours of debate on the motion to proceed wasn’t enough for them. Now they have refused a “unanimous consent” request to waive the reading of the Boxer substitute to the Lieberman-Warner bill.

This means if you tune in to C-SPAN2 right now (it is 2:30 pm and the reading has gone on for almost an hour I think, and probably has at least another hour to go), you will hear the entire 400 page bill being read aloud.

I suppose that isn’t quite as bad as listening to the umpteenth repetition of the conservative talking points that “this bill will raise gasoline prices and that will hurt my low income constituents so much that I might actually feel bad for blocking every conceivable bill that could help low income people during my entire career.”

[More faux compassion from the uncompassionate conservatives.]

… crippling effects of high-energy prices …

especially harmful to lower income families.

405% to 804% increase for delivered coal

up to 100% increase in natural gas

up to 40% increase in gasoline

He doesn’t like international offsets — but he does like no-till farming offsets!

[If you look up "message discipline" in the dictionary, you'll find a picture of conservatives.]

Gasoline prices have risen sharply under than Democratic Congress.

It is a very reasonable question to ask what is this Lieberman Warner climate bill going to do to energy prices.

Read more

[Bond is not what you would call a techno-optimist.]

This bill would increase energy prices $6.7 trillion.

Does anybody have any doubts what will happen if you increase prices … taxes … on producers. Higher prices for consumers and more pain at the pump.

Gas prices are already at record levels.

I have traveled all over Missouri, seeing businesses that are facing catastrophe from these gas prices.

Read more

[Carper has been active on climate issues for years.]

Gasoline prices have been rising at an alarming rate. This is going to continue.

If we want to avoid gasoline prices from rising, we must enact this legislation.

The facts on global warming are indisputable. He runs through a lot of it.

In 50 years we might not have NASCAR races at Dover Beach. [If that doesn't drive climate action, nothing will.]

Read more

Agrees with Senator from Alabama’s remarks. Need he say more?

Claims a University of Georgia study says the average temperature in America dropped 1° in the last century [don't know what the heck he is referring to].

High prices for gasoline are my constituents number one issue.

Some people in this body want to enact legislation that would increase the price of gas.

Read more

I traveled my state this week … talked to a lot of people.

One thing that is absolutely clear. The American people are terribly concerned about the surge in gasoline and electricity prices. This is hurting them.

“Average families carpooling” [the horror!]

They want us to do something. They are not happy that we are importing 60% of the oil we are using. We are transfering out of our country $500 billion a year

It is the greatest wealth transfer in the history of the world.

Read more

Drill, drill, drill.

[I guess he's not clear on the subject matter of this particular bill. I am Not sure I'd heard him use the word climate in his remarks.]

Where is the tipping point at which Congress will realize that drilling for more oil will only make the climate problem worse and not actually lower gasoline prices. [OK, he didn't say that, but this guy is like an infomercial for ExxonMobil.]

China and India blah, blah, blah….

Read more

We must make a political decisions that prevent us from ever getting near the level of atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide that are a point of no return.

I have been on the Greenland ice sheet. It’s 2 miles thick. If that all melts, the seas will rise 10 to 15 feet [actually 23]. And then there’s Antarctica…. We can’t let that happen.

America is the one who has to lead.

Shows a map of Florida if sea levels rise 10 feet. [It ain't pretty.]

Read more

Droughts are already occurring in my state more frequently.

We ought to be moving much much much more aggressively forward on wind and solar.

In 1916, Congress put in place long-term, permanent tax incentives for finding oil and gas. Wind and solar tax credits are extended very short-term, and often expire … an anemic, weak response.

The production tax credit [for wind] should be extended for a full decade.

I’m going to offer an amendment would respect the coal.

Read more

A new report from the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, finds that strong climate policy is a driver for a healthy economy. A policy that prioritizes energy efficiency and renewable energy — such as cap-and-trade legislation that limits carbon emissions — will drive investment into those sectors. From day one, the millions of Americans working in such jobs will enjoy greater job security.

Strong Climate Action Directly Benefits Over 14 Million American Workers. “What is clear from this report is that millions of U.S. workers — across a wide range of occupations, states, and income levels — will all benefit from the project of defeating global warming and transforming the United States into a green economy.” Over 14 million people throughout the country are employed in 45 representative occupations that would benefit in a low-carbon economy, roughly nine percent of today’s total U.S. workforce. [PERI, 5/28/08]

The six green strategies examined in the report are: building retrofitting, mass transit, energy-efficient automobiles, wind power, solar power, and cellulosic biomass fuels. PERI’s analysis shows that the vast majority of jobs associated with these six green strategies are in the same areas of employment that people already work in to-day, in every region and state of the country.

JOBS THAT WILL BUILD THE GREEN U.S. ECONOMY AND FIGHT GLOBAL WARMING

As the report’s authors note, “The percentage of total U.S. employment involved in green jobs could be expanded dramatically if we had reported the various service and support occupations that will be needed for each of the six green investment areas.” And if they considered other green investments — “the listing of representative occupations — again, still not attempting an exhaustive list — would need to expand further.”

Labor and industry leaders have heralded the report’s findings: Read more

Elizabeth’s Dole’s Senate Statement on the Climate Security Act is here. Some highlights:

I understand this bill is viewed by most as an environmental bill–which it is–but it is also essential to our national security….

Retired General and former Army Chief of Staff Gordon Sullivan said, “People are saying they want to be perfectly convinced about climate science projections, but speaking as a soldier, we never have 100 percent certainty. If you wait until you have 100 percent certainty, something bad is going to happen on the battlefield”….

This is not a perfect bill, and a perfect bill likely does not exist. However, the fundamental approach of this bill–providing a market driven system–is the right way to address climate change.

I am disappointed that this bill fails to consider the need for more nuclear energy in the United States.…

Read more

Looks like I might get some actual work done today!

[The afternoon is also going to be taken up by the climate bill.]

From Thomas — it appears the debate will continue sometime after 9:30 through 11:30:

Read more

For those who care about avoiding catastrophic global warming or the price shock we’re facing from peak oil — which had better become the majority of Americans pretty damn soon if we’re going to get out of the multiple messes that were in — the choice is not a hard one:

Read more