Beck Falsely States The U.S. Bought Alaska In The ‘1950s’ So We Could Drill
Beck Falsely States The U.S. Bought Alaska In The ‘1950s’ So We Could Drill
While appearing on Fox & Friends this morning, Glenn Beck managed to make a trio of mistakes when he attacked the Waxman-Markey clean energy bill passed by the House last week. The Fox News pundit falsely asserted the legislation’s effect on our oil dependency would be “none.” Beck then pointed out, incorrectly, that the U.S. purchased Alaska in the “1950s” and that we did so because of our interest in its “resources,” a subtle way of advocating for more drilling in Alaska:
CARLSON: But nowhere in that bill is anything about reducing our dependence on foreign oil.
BECK: None. […]
You know Donald Trump, I want to talk to this guy. When he was on the show just a few minutes ago I was thinking how can you not be laughing at us? How can the world not be laughing at us? We have all these resources. Why did we buy Alaska in the 1950s? We bought Alaska for the resources. And now we say no!
Watch it:
During his weekly address on Saturday, President Obama specifically focused on how the legislation would help lift “our dependence on foreign oil.” Obama said the bill would “spur the development of low carbon sources of energy,” which includes wind, solar, and geothermal power. He added the bill would result in “new energy savings like the efficient windows,” thereby reducing “heating costs in the winter and cooling costs in the summer.”
Beck’s attempt to rewrite history to fit his talking point is also troubling. For clarification, Alaska was purchased in 1867 for $7.2 million and soon became known as “Seward’s Folly,” named for Secretary of State William H. Seward, because at the time it was widely regarded as foolish to spend so much money on remote tundra. (Perhaps Beck was thinking of Alaska becoming the 49th state in 1959.) The resources the U.S. was after in 1867 weren’t oil, but fish, furs, and the prospect of closer proximity to Russia from the North American continent.
- Comments
- 189
After Campaigning For Climate Change Legislation, McCain Now Derides It As ‘Cap-And-Tax’
After Campaigning For Climate Change Legislation, McCain Now Derides It As ‘Cap-And-Tax’
On Friday, the House passed the American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act which, among other things, would institute a cap-and-trade system to curb U.S. carbon emissions that contribute to man-made climate change. The Senate is set to consider the legislation in the fall, but a number of Republican senators have declared the legislation dead on arrival. In an interview this morning with conservative talker Mike Broomhead on Pheonix, AZ’s Newstalk 550 KFYI, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) echoed their sentiments. He smeared the ACES legislation as a “cap-and-tax” program motivated by the Obama administration’s desire to pay for things like “banks and the world’s largest insurance company”:
MCCAIN: In its present form, which is cap-and-tax. … It’s really terrible, because I believe that climate change is real, I believe it is something that we need to address, and I’m sure that a lot of Americans do, but to do so with a bill like this? … What [the Obama administration is] doing is using cap-and-trade…to raise billions of dollars so they can spend money on Cash for Clunkers, you know, buying General Motors and Banks and the world’s largest insurance company. … So it started on the wrong path and now it’s just turned into, you know, it’s laws and sausages at its worst in my view.
Asked whether he thought ACES would get through the Senate and the U.S. would “end up with cap-and-trade,” McCain lamented, “Look, elections have consequences.” McCain said further that Americans didn’t support ACES, calling it a “far-left” agenda item. Listen here:
While resistance to ACES among Senate Republicans isn’t surprising, McCain’s apparent disdain for the legislation certainly is. During the campaign, McCain laid out a plan to reduce U.S. carbon emissions that included a cap-and-trade component. Describing his plan in May 2008, McCain said, “A cap-and-trade policy will send a signal that will be heard and welcomed all across the American economy.” In June 2008, he said, “I have proposed a new system of cap-and-trade that over time will change the dynamic of our energy economy.” What was that McCain said about elections having consequences? It seems Congress would likely be considering a cap-and-trade system today even if McCain had won the election last fall.
More to the point, however, McCain’s principle substantive objection to early versions of ACES — that it would have auctioned 100 percent of the initial emission permits — has been addressed. The version that passed the House on Friday allows for 85 percent of the emission permits to be distributed free of charge for a “prolonged transition period.”
Finally, McCain is simply wrong to claim that the American people are not supportive of legislation like ACES. According to a Washington Post-ABC Poll, 75 percent of respondents said they supported government regulation of green house gas emissions, and 80 percent of those respondents said the government should do so even if it raised the cost of goods. As for their support for a cap-and-trade system, in particular, 52 percent of respondents favored it while just 42 percent said they opposed it.
Claire McCaskill Tweets That Clean Energy Bill Will ‘Unfairly Punish’ Missouri
Claire McCaskill Tweets That Clean Energy Bill Will ‘Unfairly Punish’ Missouri
Last night, the House of Representatives passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act, which will establish the first national standards for renewable energy, energy efficiency, and global warming pollution. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) responded on Twitter this morning, saying that the legislation’s cap on carbon pollution would “unfairly punish” Missouri’s families and businesses:
Missouri gets 85 percent of its electricity from coal and is home to the world’s largest coal company, Peabody Energy. Peabody has spent neatly $10 million lobbying against climate legislation since 2008. In reality, the cap-and-trade system the House passed fully protects states now dependent on coal, with multi-billion-dollar programs for advanced coal technology. “My focus in the shaping of the bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee was to keep electricity rates affordable and to enable utilities to continue using coal,” coal-district Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA) explained during yesterday’s debate. “Both of these goals have been achieved.”
In his weekly video address, President Barack Obama congratulated “the House for passing this bill, and urged “the Senate to take this opportunity to come together and meet our obligations – to our constituents, to our children, to God’s creation, and to future generations.” He also asked senators like McCaskill not to be “prisoners of the past“:
Now my call to every Senator, as well as to every American, is this: We cannot be afraid of the future. And we must not be prisoners of the past. Don’t believe the misinformation out there that suggests there is somehow a contradiction between investing in clean energy and economic growth. It’s just not true.
Watch it:
House passes American Clean Energy and Security Act.
House passes American Clean Energy and Security Act.
In a 219-to-212 vote this evening, the House passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act, which will “for the first time put a price on carbon emissions” in the U.S. In the final minutes of the debate, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) threatened to obstruct the bill by reading 300 pages of amendments, but eventually relented and read only a few sentences from selected portions. Progressive Media compiled a video detailing the major arguments both for and against the bill. Watch it:
Despite promises that Republicans would rally against the bill, several members defected to support it, including Reps. Dave Reichart (R-WA), Mike Castle (R-DE), Mary Bono Mack, Mark Kirk (R-IL), Leonard Lance (R-NJ), Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ), Chris Smith (R-NJ), and John McHugh (R-NY). 44 Democrats voted against the legislation. Reps. John Lewis (D-GA) and Pat Kennedy (D-RI) both returned to the floor for the first time after tending to significant health issues to support the legislation.
Rep. Rob Bishop says passage of clean energy bill will be as tragic as the death of Michael Jackson.
Rep. Rob Bishop says passage of clean energy bill will be as tragic as the death of Michael Jackson.
Yesterday on Fox Business, anchor David Asman hosted a round table dedicated to smearing the Waxman-Markey clean energy economy legislation. The discussion, including Fox Business’ Cody Willard and the Heritage Foundation’s David Kreutzer, lacked a single proponent of the bill. Concluding the segment, Asman asked Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) — an opponent not just of clean energy legislation, but of green jobs in general — if the bill would pass the House. He responded with a morbid comparison:
ASMAN: Congressman Bishop is there any chance at all that this thing won’t pass tomorrow?
BISHOP: Well there’s hope, we’ll see if — I mean you guys covered a national tragedy today, let’s hope we don’t give you a tragedy tomorrow as well.
Watch it:
Earlier during the programming (the segment aired at 7:30 eastern time), the death of Michael Jackson was announced.
John Podesta: Clean Energy Bill Is ‘Imperfect In Its Means,’ But ‘Revolutionary In Its Intent’
John Podesta: Clean Energy Bill Is ‘Imperfect In Its Means,’ But ‘Revolutionary In Its Intent’
John Podesta, the President and CEO of the Center for American Progress, is calling on progressives to support the passage of “revolutionary” global warming legislation, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454). The bill has received some criticisms from progressive bloggers and activists. A vote in the House of Representatives is expected this Friday, June 26th.
Once again, Mick Jagger is right: “You can’t always get what you want/ But if you try, sometimes you just might find/ You get what you need.” The House of Representatives is poised for its first ever floor debate on legislation to reduce global warming pollution. This landmark bill is revolutionary in its intent and, while imperfect in its means, deserves the support of progressives.
For about the cost of a postage stamp per day, the bill would lay the foundation for a thriving clean energy economy, by establishing greenhouse gas pollution limits, setting the first national renewable electricity and efficiency standards for utilities, and improving efficiency standards for buildings and appliances.
The original draft included a more aggressive 2020 greenhouse gas reduction target and a higher renewable electricity standard, which if restored would create more clean energy jobs than the current compromise.
Unfortunately, Senate passage of similar legislation will be more difficult, and the Senate Energy Committee is off to an inauspicious beginning by passing an energy bill that would do little to boost investments in renewable electricity. The Senate bill is weak, toothless, and unacceptable.
The Congressional will to act lags far behind the scientific evidence that there is little time left to avert the worst impacts of global warming. But passage of the American Clean Energy and Security Act this week by the House will give us a chance to start the critical transition to a low-carbon economy.
GOP distributes candles to ‘thank’ Obama for ‘taxing our lights out.’
GOP distributes candles to ‘thank’ Obama for ‘taxing our lights out.’
The Republican National Committee has sent candles to lawmakers on Capitol Hill and released a web video claiming climate legislation will “tax our lights out.” Notes attached to the candles protest the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454), claiming that the bill’s cap on global warming pollution will make it impossible for Americans to use electricity:
If Democrats pass ‘Cap and Tax,’ this is all the energy American families and businesses will be able to afford. Don’t tax our lights out!
Watch the video:
In reality, the Congressional Budget Office found last Friday “that the net annual economy-wide cost of the cap-and-trade program in 2020 would be $22 billion — or about $175 per household” — less than the cost of a postage stamp a day. The CBO analysis, done at the request of Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI), found that the 23 million Americans “in the lowest income quintile — would see an average net benefit of about $40 in 2020.”
The point is that we need to be clear about who are the realists and who are the fantasists here. The realists are actually the climate activists, who understand that if you give people in a market economy the right incentives they will make big changes in their energy use and environmental impact. The fantasists are the burn-baby-burn crowd who hate the idea of using government for good, and therefore insist that doing the right thing is economically impossible.
GOP ‘Rural American Solutions Group’ Peddles Coal Company Document As Its Own
GOP ‘Rural American Solutions Group’ Peddles Coal Company Document As Its Own
Leaders of a new GOP group, the “Rural American Solutions Group,” are distributing a document attacking climate change legislation as an economic burden to most of the country. As it turns out, the information in the press release was provided to the Republican congressmen by Peabody Energy, a juggernaut of the coal industry. Staffers for GOP Reps. Frank Lucas (R-OK), Sam Graves (R-MO), and Doc Hastings (R-WA) are emailing around a map that purports to detail “how the Democrats’ National Energy Tax unfairly targets rural Americans.”
A closer look at the source of the image reveals the document’s origins:
Two employees of Peabody Energy are listed in the metadata of the map document: Chairman and CEO Greg Boyce and Communications Manager Chris Taylor. The congressmen opposing climate change legislation — Reps. Lucas, Graves, and Hastings — are simply copying-and-pasting information that has been directly fed to them by Peabody Energy.
Peabody Energy’s outsized political influence is well-documented:
– From 2004 to 2008, the Peabody Energy PAC contributed $579,538 to federal candidates including Rep. Sam Graves and Rep. Frank Lucas. In 2008, Peabody contributed $150,290; $180,500 in 2006; $130,250 in 2004; $118,498 in 2002. [Opensecrets]
– Peabody Is An $8.4 Million Lobbying Juggernaut. Peabody Energy directly spent over $8.4 million lobbying Congress in 2008, up 3,200 percent from 2004, as legislation to limit coal pollution became an election-year issue. In addition, the Peabody-supported front groups ACCCE and the National Mining Association spent a further $9.95 million and $4.56 million respectively on lobbying efforts. [OpenSecrets]
Lieberman Says He’s ‘Pleasantly Encouraged’ By Obama, But Disagrees With His Middle East And Health Care Agenda
Lieberman Says He’s ‘Pleasantly Encouraged’ By Obama, But Disagrees With His Middle East And Health Care Agenda
In an interview with Bloomberg’s Al Hunt, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) — who campaigned hard against President Obama during the 2008 election and supported his Republican challenger John McCain — said that he’s impressed with how Obama is handling the job.
“Put me down now as pleasantly encouraged by the first five months,” Lieberman said. “He has been strong, particularly on foreign policy. I think President Obama is off to a very, very good start in a very difficult time in our nation’s history.” Lieberman lauded Obama’s recent Cairo speech to the Muslim world, saying it was a “significant step overall. … My guess is he opened some minds in the Muslim world.”
Despite the laudatory comments of Obama’s foreign policy vision, Lieberman offered criticism of the president’s efforts to urge Israel to stop its settlement activities. “I thought the focus on the President’s direct call in that speech in Cairo for the Israelis to freeze all settlement activity — including the ‘natural growth‘ of settlements that everybody agrees are no longer settlements — …that was risky in the sense that it may lead listeners to believe that the main reason there is not an Arab-Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement is the Israeli settlement policy,” he said:
HUNT: Do you disagree then with the President and Secretary Clinton that there ought to be a freeze — no growth in those settlements now?
LIEBERMAN: I do. I disagree.
Watch it:
On Obama’s domestic agenda, Lieberman announced his opposition to a public health insurance option. “I don’t favor a public option, and I don’t favor a public option because I think there’s plenty of competition in the private insurance market,” he argued. (He’s wrong.) Lieberman warned that political pressure in favor of the public option may thwart efforts at achieving health care reform. “Let’s get something done instead of having a debate,” he said.
Separately, Lieberman said he “could support” the Waxman-Markey clean energy legislation in the House. “It’s a great act of legislative leadership,” he added, saying the critical issue is convincing “people from states that get a lot of their electricity from coal-burning power plants that we can make this change without skyrocketing the cost of living and the cost of doing business.”
Joe Barton: Democratic clean energy bill is ‘C.R.A.P.’
Joe Barton: Democratic clean energy bill is ‘C.R.A.P.’
Yesterday, House Republicans unveiled their alternative to the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454), energy reform legislation that sets standards for renewable energy and global warming pollution. After Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) introduced the Republican “nuclear option,” they returned to attacking the Democratic plan as a “national energy tax.” Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), a prominent global warming denier and top recipient of dirty energy contributions, used potty humor in his attack:
They like to call it ACES but I call it C.R.A.P. — continue ruining America’s prosperity.
In fact, it is the lack of clean energy and global warming policies that has given this country record gas prices and devastating climate disasters. A clean energy economy can restore America’s prosperity. A new study from the Pew Charitable Trusts finds that “the number of jobs in America’s emerging clean energy economy grew nearly two and a half times faster than overall jobs between 1998 and 2007.”
House GOP energy plan declares that impact of global warming ‘shall not be considered for any purpose.’
House GOP energy plan declares that impact of global warming ‘shall not be considered for any purpose.’
House Republicans today introduced their alternative energy plan. Developed by the Republican American Energy Solutions Group, the American Energy Act is billed as an “all of the above” energy program. But as The Wonk Room’s Brad Johnson notes, the legislation looks more like an attempt to legislate the threat of global warming “out of existence.” Indeed, the bill specifically states that at no point in implementing their energy plan can the effects of global warming on the environment “be considered for any purpose”:
Johnson remarks, “The Republican response to our dependence on fossil fuels and their pollution is to give billions of dollars in new tax breaks and subsidies to the oil, coal, and nuclear industries.”
Inhofe’s Strategy To Block EPA Regulation Of Greenhouse Gases: ‘We Can Stall That Until We Get A New President’
Inhofe’s Strategy To Block EPA Regulation Of Greenhouse Gases: ‘We Can Stall That Until We Get A New President’
In April, the Environmental Protection Agency “formally declared carbon dioxide and five other heat-trapping gases to be pollutants that endanger public health and welfare, setting in motion a process that will lead to the regulation of the gases for the first time in the United States.” Though President Obama has said that he would “prefer that Congress address global warming rather than have the EPA tackle it through administrative action,” the EPA’s finding allows the agency to move forward with regulations to limit greenhouse gas pollution to build a clean-energy economy.
Republicans and some centrist Democrats have attacked the EPA’s potential regulation of greenhouse gases. But the Senate’s top global warming denier does not not appear worried.
In a speech for the Heartland Institute yesterday, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) said that the Senate could just “stall” any EPA regulation:
INHOFE: Don’t be distressed when you see the House passes some kind of cap-and-trade bill. And you know it could be worse and she could still pass it, so it’ll pass there. The EPA has threatened to regulate this through the Clean Air Act. That isn’t going to work in my opinion because we can stall that until we get a new president – that shouldn’t be a problem.
Watch it:
Make no mistake, Inhofe is an avowed opponent of EPA regulation. On the day that the EPA administrator Lisa Jackson announced the endangerment finding, Inhofe released a statement arguing that “Congress should pass a simple, narrowly-targeted bill that stops EPA in its tracks.”
Unsurprisingly, Inhofe is also against a cap-and-trade program, which he calls “another bad option.” In his Heartland Speech, Inhofe confidently predicted that he will be able to block any cap-and-trade legislation that passes the House, saying that “in the Senate it will not pass” thanks to obstructionists like him.
Transcript: More »
GOP Congressmen Smear Green Collar Workers, Claim Their Jobs Are ‘Paper Mâché,’ ‘Subprime,’ ‘Gangrene’
GOP Congressmen Smear Green Collar Workers, Claim Their Jobs Are ‘Paper Mâché,’ ‘Subprime,’ ‘Gangrene’
Yesterday, House Republicans took to the floor for an hour-long series of speeches dedicated to attacking Waxman-Markey clean energy economy legislation. But in addition to doing the usual — misrepresenting an MIT study to claim the legislation would result in a tax and flaunting their skepticism of global climate change — the members of Congress decided to fire a volley of smears at workers doing green jobs as well. ThinkProgress has compiled a video of some of the attacks:
REP. JOHN FLEMING (R-LA): What we really get is a pass-through of taxpayer dollars that go into what I would call artificial - or I call them paper mâché jobs, so-called green jobs.
REP. TODD AKIN (R-MO): The green jobs that are being talked about, we’re going to create all these green jobs. In Spain, they call them subprime jobs.
REP. G.T. THOMPSON (R-PA): This is all in the name of green, greening America, specifically solar and hydro. But I have to - in terms of the economy, the other green that comes to mind is gangrene.
Watch it:
Similarly, Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) has mocked the very existence of green jobs, calling the clean energy industry “as real as the Jolly Green Giant.”
Despite the attacks from right-wing congressmen, green jobs legislation can simultaneously help solve the climate change crisis while spurring an economic boom that will generate millions of both high tech and manufacturing jobs. Akin and others point to a debunked ExxonMobil-funded study on the effect of cap and trade on the Spanish economy to call green jobs “subprime.” But a report by the Center for American Progress shows investment in green jobs produces four times as many jobs as an equivalent investment in the oil industry.
The Environmental Defense Fund website notes there are at least four clean energy companies in Thompson’s district and six in Akin’s district. Maybe these right-wing congressmen should consider they are not only preventing millions of future green jobs by opposing Waxman-Markey, but by sliming green jobs they are mocking their own constituents.
Rep. Fred Upton: Waxman-Markey legislation is ‘hazardous waste.’
Rep. Fred Upton: Waxman-Markey legislation is ‘hazardous waste.’
This morning the House Republican Conference released an over-produced video highlighting its recent series of “National Energy Summits,” which were billed as an opportunity to “discuss solutions to America’s energy challenges.” With a soaring soundtrack in the background, the video features a series of Republican House members reciting tired talking points aimed at tearing down the Waxman-Markey clean energy jobs bill recently approved by the House Energy committee. Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI) went so far as to characterize the legislation as “hazardous waste”:
UPTON: I might just add, I’m glad Steve brought a copy of the bill. I wanted to bring one but I was afraid Delta was going to charge me extra money for excess weight. And I knew I couldn’t take it in my carry on because they would view it as a hazardous waste and was going to be limited to three ounces.
Watch it (at 2:00):
Rep. Akin Argues Against Curbing Emissions: I Don’t Want To Stop The Seasons From Changing
Rep. Akin Argues Against Curbing Emissions: I Don’t Want To Stop The Seasons From Changing
Yesterday on the House floor, Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) launched into a nonsensical tirade against legislation aimed at addressing global warming by reducing carbon emissions. Akin demonstrated his lack of understanding of climate issues by erroneously celebrating the seasonal change from winter to spring as “good climate change” and confused “weather” with “climate.” He dismissed the threat of global warming as a “comedy” and wondered who would “want to put politicians in charge of the weather anyways.”
Akin also twice implied that his fellow climate change-denying GOP congressmen are more knowledgeable than Democrats because they have “passed high school science”:
AKIN: This whole thing strikes me if it weren’t so serious as being a comedy you know. I mean, we just went from winter to spring. In Missouri when we go from winter to spring, that’s a good climate change. I don’t want to stop that climate change you know. Who in the world want to put politicians in charge of the weather anyways? What a dumb idea. [...]
Some of the models said that we’re going to have surf at the front steps of the Capitol pretty soon. I was really looking forward to that. [...]
We’ve been joined by another doctor, a medical doctor but also a guy who graduated from high school science as well, from Georgia, my good friend, Congressman Gingrey. … So to have actually a guy who’s passed high school science is tremendously helpful. And Dr. Fleming from Louisiana.
Watch it:
While Akin may be excited at the prospect of being able to “surf at the front steps of the Capitol,” the reality of climate change and the resulting increase in sea levels is far more serious. A study published by Science expects sea level rise of 0.8 to 2 meters (2.6 to 6.6 feet) by 2100; as Joe Romm writes, “Needless to say, a sea level rise of one meter by 2100 would be an unmitigated catastrophe for the planet, even if sea levels didn’t keep rising several inches a decade for centuries, which they inevitably would.”
In Akin’s own state of Missouri, climate change has already caused growing conditions to shift and several species of birds common to the state have migrated northward. If global warming persists, climatologists have predicted that Missouri can expect “warmer temperatures, shorter winters, and an overall increase in rain and flooding.” Indeed, unusually harsh storms and flooding caused a state of emergency in Missouri last month.
George Allen officially launches his ‘industry-backed anti-regulatory group.’
George Allen officially launches his ‘industry-backed anti-regulatory group.’
Earlier today, former Republican senator George Allen officially launched his latest venture, “an industry-backed anti-regulatory group” called American Energy Freedom Center. In a webcast today, Allen claimed that he wants to “tell people the truthful story about America’s energy potential that has never been told before.” Allen’s new organization is a partner group to the Institute for Energy Research, which is partially funded by Exxon Mobil and run by Robert Bradley Jr., who worked at Enron. In 2003, Bradley wrote the book “Climate Alarmism Reconsidered,” which argued that “that climate alarmism and its corollary, policy activism, are unwarranted and counterproductive” in the face of global climate change.
After Promising To Have Waxman ‘By The Nuts,’ Joe Barton Whines About Getting Beat ‘Time After Time’
After Promising To Have Waxman ‘By The Nuts,’ Joe Barton Whines About Getting Beat ‘Time After Time’
A week ago, Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), the ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, bet he would have committee chair Henry Waxman (D-CA) “by the nuts” during the markup of landmark climate and energy legislation by the committee:
He has got a chance to get the votes. If you are familiar with Texas Hold ‘Em poker, he doesn’t have the nuts. It is not a done deal. Nor do I. … We will see which has the other by the nuts next week.
“This is not going to be one of those gentlemanly, pro forma markups,” Barton swaggered, while circulating a list of hundreds of poison-pill amendments. “We’re prepared for it to take weeks or months.”
Instead, business and industry joined President Obama and environmentalists to support the bill, leaving Barton’s fellow global warming deniers to anonymously snipe at each other. Waxman didn’t blink at Barton’s bluster, even hiring a speedreader to negate Barton’s threat to delay the process by forcing the reading in full of the 937-page legislation and every amendment.
As Waxman steered the markup and Obama announced groundbreaking limits on global warming pollution from automobiles, Barton talked about the CO2 in Dr. Pepper. Republicans were left flailing, accusing Democrats of engineering economic catastrophe one moment and of being the party of big business the next. As his defeat became certain, Barton whined about being “beat time after time after time after time”:
It’s easy on the majority to keep up a good-faith attitude because you’re winning. . . . It’s not a lot of fun, as you well know, having been in the minority yourself for twelve years, to work very hard and put just as much effort and put just as much focus, and get beat time after time after time after time 36 to 22, 31 to 20, whatever it is.
Watch it:
The final vote in favor of the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454) was 35 to 23. Barton’s dirty-energy alternative failed 19 to 35, with two Republicans abstaining.
In the showdown between Waxman and Barton, it turned out to be the Texan who was all hat and no cattle.
Fissures Grow In Right-Wing Business Lobby As Caterpillar Speaks Out In Favor Of Clean Energy Legislation
Fissures Grow In Right-Wing Business Lobby As Caterpillar Speaks Out In Favor Of Clean Energy Legislation
Yesterday, President Obama sat down with members of his Economic Recovery Advisory Board to discuss the pending Waxman-Markey energy reform legislation. One of the advisers is James Owens, who is the CEO of Caterpillar and also a member of the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), the right-wing trade group that has taken a hard-line approach against any energy reform that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. When the President asked Owens if he saw a “competitive disadvantage” as a “big manufacturer” in dealing with energy reform, Owens said placing a cap on carbon would actually spur innovation:
OWENS: I agree with Jeff. I think we have the technology, we have the smarts here, and the product technologies, the economic incents of what’s needed. And that’s why I think of us in industry support a clarity around a carbon price, because that’s going to drive a lot of innovation and a lot of efficiency and will get with the program of reducing carbon emissions.
Owens continued laying out his support of clean energy legislation, noting most of Caterpillar’s renewable energy related products are currently sold “outside the United States…partly because of the way we regulate emissions site-specific, as opposed to looking at combined emissions and energy efficiency.” He also emphasized that giving the markets a price for carbon would “help our country be more competitive using the technologies that are out there.”
Owen’s increasingly outspoken tone comes at a time of tectonic shifts in the business community on clean energy. Currently, some of the most powerful traditional business trade groups — the Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers — are devoting their efforts to “kill” clean energy reform legislation. But member corporations of these groups are at odds with this approach. The Natural Resources Defense Council conducted a study of the Chamber’s board members’ position on climate change legislation and found:
And out of the group of businesses that have publicly stated their positions, 19 favored federal action and only four opposed it. And three of those four are coal-mining companies.
Earlier this month, the utility company Duke Energy announced it would abandon its membership to the NAM over the trade group’s radical opposition to climate change legislation. When ThinkProgress asked NAM’s chief energy lobbyist about Duke Energy’s departure, NAM cowered and tried to hide its position. Similarly, member corporations such as Nike and Johnson and Johnson have applied pressure to the Chamber to drop its opposition to clean energy legislation.
With Caterpillar and other corporations calling for action on clean energy, the question becomes: will the NAM and other trade groups continue to lobby and fund ads opposing this legislation, or will member corporations find more relevant trade groups that will advance their interests in Washington?
Evan Bayh votes against a national renewable electricity standard that even Republicans supported.
Evan Bayh votes against a national renewable electricity standard that even Republicans supported.
This morning, Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) “was the only Democrat to oppose a renewable-energy requirement” that even some Republicans supported. The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee “voted down an amendment offered by Republican Senator Jeff Sessions that would have removed the renewable electricity standard from the energy package the panel is currently debating” by a vote of 9 to 13. Even though the Energy Information Administration has found that a much stronger standard would only affect electricity prices in Indiana by 6 percent in 2026, Bayh argued Indiana would be hit hard:
Bayh said Indiana would be among the states that would bear a disproportionate share of the cost of meeting the requirement. He said a fairer system would be offering tax credits for producing power from renewable sources.
The standard of 15 percent renewable energy or efficiency gains by 2021 is significantly weaker than President Obama’s preferred standard of 25 percent by 2025. Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) and Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) joined 11 Democrats in support of the standard, and Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) did not vote.
Shimkus: ‘Corporate Titans Are My Friends’
Shimkus: ‘Corporate Titans Are My Friends’
Today, conservative extremist Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) engaged in a one-man debate whether corporate America is good or evil. The Republican Party’s attempts to characterize the Waxman-Markey green economy legislation as economic catastrophe have been neutered, as the bill has gained the support of a broad coalition of corporate America, poverty advocates, labor unions, and environmentalists.
In a confused monologue, Shimkus attempts to follow new Republican talking points and portray himself as a defender of the little guy against corporate greed. But he can’t stop himself from also praising the corporations as his friends:
We’re fighting for the ratepayer. This debate is: “Who protects the ratepayer?” The corporate titans are my friends! I’m a Caterpillar supporter. I’m an Exelon supporter. I’m an Ameren supporter. A lot of these companies that have negotiated deals, they support me. But I know that they’re in the room to protect shareholder wealth, the wealth of the bond holders, the wealth of the stockholders. And that’s okay.
Watch it:
Caterpillar ($54,250), Exelon ($48,749), and Ameren ($39,500) are indeed some of Shimkus’s top contributors. But unlike Shimkus, an ideological global warming denier, these “corporate titans” recognize the reality of the threat of climate change and the need for a new clean energy economy. Caterpillar and Exelon are members of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a corporate-environmentalist coalition supporting Waxman-Markey, and even coal-powered Ameren supports global warming pollution mandates.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll