A ThinkProgress analysis finds that a majority of the members on the congressional special fiscal committee oppose regulation of global warming pollution. Even with the three House Democrats left to be named, seven of the 12-member committee are known to be climate zombies. Every Republican on the so-called Super Congress, as well as Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), have voted to reverse the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) work to limit greenhouse gas pollution. Most of the Republicans named to the committee are proud torchbearers of global warming denial:

Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI): “I do not say that it is man-made.”

Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI): “From what I have read, there remains a great deal of uncertainty with regard to the scientific evidence about climate change.”

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA): “There has been an increase in the surface temperature of the planet over the course of the last 100 years or so. I think it’s clear that that has happened. The extent to which that has been caused by human activity I think is not as clear. I think that is still very much disputed and has been debated.”

Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH): “When you analyze all the data, there is a warming trend according to science. But the jury is out on the degree of how much is manmade.”

Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) — whose top contributors include Koch Industries — has joined Camp and Upton in numerous votes this year to deny the threat of climate pollution, including H.R. 910, the House bill introduced by Upton to overturn the EPA’s scientific finding that greenhouse pollution endangers public health and welfare.

Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) also voted in April in a failed attempt to overturn the EPA’s scientific finding. Toomey and Portman were co-sponsors of that legislation.

Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) also tried in April to prohibit the regulation of greenhouse gases from a wide range of polluters.

However, Baucus has claimed that he has wanted Congress to lead on fighting climate pollution while opposing the EPA. He has the opportunity to become a climate hawk and insist that the fiscal package his committee devises include a civilization-saving, economy-spurring, and deficit-reducing carbon tax or cap and trade program.

Of the nine members already named to the committee, only Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) have been unequivocal about their efforts to fight greenhouse pollution.

by Daniel J. Weiss

The Audacity of Nope: Republicans embrace Marxism

Groucho Marx, that is:

Lately it seems that the House Republican leadership is against everything that isn’t pre-approved by Big Oil or the Tea Party. Perhaps the most outlandish example of this Groucho Marx approach to public policy is today’s vote on the BULB Act, H.R. 2417. It would repeal the energy efficiency standards for light bulbs established in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, or EISA, P.L. 110-140. It would also prevent California from setting its own light bulb efficiency standards. The original author of the provision is House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Fred Upton (R-MI), who is now supporting the repeal of his own idea after conservatives attacked it along with other clean energy programs.

EISA, with Rep. Upton’s efficiency measure, passed the House in 2007 by a bipartisan vote of 319-100, with support from 49.7 percent of Republicans who voted and 98 percent of Democratic votes. President George W. Bush signed it into law.

Afterwards, Rep. Upton bragged in a press release, “Upton Measure to Upgrade Energy Efficiency Standards for all Light Bulbs Now Law”:

Current incandescent bulbs on store shelves are obsolete and highly inefficient—only 10% of the energy consumed by each bulb is for light with 90% wasted on unnecessary heat. Today’s incandescent bulbs employ the same technology as the bulbs Thomas Edison first created over 120 years ago.

This common sense, bipartisan approach partners with American industry to save energy as well as help foster the creation of new domestic manufacturing jobs. By upgrading to more efficient light bulbs, we will help preserve energy resources and reduce harmful emission [sic], all the while saving American families billions of dollars in their electric bills—and the benefits will be as easy as a flip of the switch.

Interestingly, this press release was removed from Rep. Upton’s website.

Read more

Our guest blogger is Daniel Weiss, Senior Fellow and Director of Climate Strategy, Center for American Progress.

Lately it seems that the House Republican leadership is against everything that isn’t pre-approved by Big Oil or the Tea Party. Perhaps the most outlandish example of this Groucho Marx approach to public policy is today’s vote on the BULB Act, H.R. 2417. It would repeal the energy efficiency standards for light bulbs established in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, or EISA, P.L. 110-140. It would also prevent California from setting its own light bulb efficiency standards. The original author of the provision is House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Fred Upton (R-MI), who is now supporting the repeal of his own idea after conservatives attacked it along with other clean energy programs.

EISA, with Rep. Upton’s efficiency measure, passed the House in 2007 by a bipartisan vote of 319-100, with support from 49.7 percent of Republicans who voted and 98 percent of Democratic votes. President George W. Bush signed it into law.

Afterwards, Rep. Upton bragged in a press release, “Upton Measure to Upgrade Energy Efficiency Standards for all Light Bulbs Now Law”:

Current incandescent bulbs on store shelves are obsolete and highly inefficient — only 10% of the energy consumed by each bulb is for light with 90% wasted on unnecessary heat. Today’s incandescent bulbs employ the same technology as the bulbs Thomas Edison first created over 120 years ago.

This common sense, bipartisan approach partners with American industry to save energy as well as help foster the creation of new domestic manufacturing jobs. By upgrading to more efficient light bulbs, we will help preserve energy resources and reduce harmful emission [sic], all the while saving American families billions of dollars in their electric bills — and the benefits will be as easy as a flip of the switch.

Interestingly, this press release was removed from Rep. Upton’s website.

Rep. Upton was correct in 2007. EISA’s light bulb efficiency standards would save about $100 per household annually in lower electricity costs, or about $12 billion per year when fully implemented. And despite false claims to the contrary, incandescent light bulbs will still be available, but they will use 28 percent to 33 percent less energy.

The new light bulb efficiency standards are supported by the light bulb manufacturing industry. “When this bill was passed, it was passed by people who knew how to make light bulbs,” says Randall Moorhead, vice president of government affairs at Philips, a leading light bulb producer. “Everyone supported it. And since then, it’s created more choice for consumers — we have two incandescent bulbs on the market that weren’t there before.”

Upton defended the efficiency standards in 2009. At a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing, he said:

Our work on light bulbs wasn’t an arbitrary mandate. We didn’t just pick a standard out of the air, or look for a catchy sounding standard like 25 by 2025 not based in science or feasibility. Instead, we worked with both industry and environmental groups to come up with a standard that made sense and was doable.

But Upton reversed course after the Republicans won a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives in the 2010 election and conservatives attacked his handiwork. Archconservative radio host Rush Limbaugh savaged Upton and his bill:

This would be a tone-deaf disaster if the Republican leadership lets Fred Upton ascend to the chairmanship of the House energy committee. This is exactly the kind of nannyism, statism, what have you, that was voted against and was defeated last week. No Republican complicit in nannyism, statism, can be rewarded this way.

Fox TV personality Glenn Beck called Rep. Upton “all socialist” in November 2010 for his authorship of the efficiency measure.

Upton attempted to appease the right wing rather than defend his program from these false attacks. He promised, “If I become chairman, we’ll be reexamining the light bulb issue, no problem.”

Read more

Leading manufacturer:  “The reality is, consumers will see no difference at all. The only difference they’ll see is lower energy bills because we’re creating more efficient incandescent bulbs.”

In a move that could be called anything but conservative, Republican lawmakers are set to bring a bill to the House floor next week that will repeal state and municipal rights to set efficiency standards for light bulbs.  The bill would unravel a piece of federal legislation that was strongly supported by light bulb manufacturers and has spurred innovation in the lighting industry.

The bill, sponsored by Texas Republican Joe Barton, would strip away any “federal, state or local requirement or standard regarding energy efficient lighting” that uses light bulbs containing mercury. In other words, all compact fluorescent bulbs.

Remember, in May, Barton, denied there was any “medical negative” from mercury emitted from coal power plants.  Now he fancies himself a protector of the public from a vastly smaller source of potential mercury poisoning. The reality: There is an extremely small amount of mercury in CFL bulbs. Even after more than 8 hours of exposure to a broken bulb, mercury levels are equal to eating a 6 oz can of tuna.

But that’s not what this is really about.

Barton’s bill targets the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which increases the efficiency of incandescent light bulbs by 27% through 2014. It was a completely non-controversial bill that had bi-partisan support, was strongly supported by light bulb manufacturers (and still is) and was signed into law by George W. Bush.

“When this bill was passed, it was passed by people who knew how to make light bulbs,” says Randall Moorhead, vice president of government affairs at Philips, a leading light bulb producer. “Everyone supported it. And since then, it’s created more choice for consumers – we have two incandescent bulbs on the market that weren’t there before.”

Read more

Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) has joined the pro-polluter frenzy sweeping the U.S. Senate, introducing legislation to permanently cripple Clean Air Act rules on global warming pollution. The small business legislation, the SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act of 2011 (S. 493), introduced by Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA), is being used as a vehicle for senators who wish to prevent regulation of greenhouse pollution from oil refineries, coal-fired power plants, heavy industry, and other major emitters. Stabenow has added her amendment to three others intended to hamstring the Environmental Protection Agency on behalf of carbon polluters.

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has introduced amendment 183, the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011, first introduced by Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK). The amendment is cosponsored by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Pat Toomey (R-PA), John Cornyn (R-TX), Mike Johanns (R-NE), Rob Portman (R-OH), and Johnny Isakson (R-GA). The amendment calls for:

– The permanent prohibition on Clean Air Act regulation of greenhouse gases, other than the existing motor vehicle rules

– Repeal of the greenhouse gas endangerment finding and reporting requirements

– Preventing any future California waiver for tailpipe greenhouse emissions

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) has introduced amendment 215, the EPA Stationary Source Regulations Suspension Act, co-sponsored by Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA), Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV), Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD), and Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND). The amendment calls for:

– A two-year suspension of stationary source regulations of carbon dioxide and methane.

Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) has introduced amendment 236, which has three elements:

– Forbidding regulation of greenhouse gases from a emitter that doesn’t also produce other regulated air pollution

– Codification of the EPA tailoring rule that establishes a 75,000 ton CO2e/year threshold for regulation

– Excluding regulation of biofuel greenhouse emissions related to land-use changes, or of any greenhouse emissions from other agricultural activities

Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) has introduced amendment 265, which has four elements:

– A two-year suspension of stationary source greenhouse gas regulations

– Preventing any future California waiver for tailpipe greenhouse emissions

– Excluding regulation of biofuel greenhouse emissions related to land-use changes, or of any greenhouse emissions from other agricultural activities

– Allocating $5 billion to the Advanced Energy Project tax credit

Votes on some combination of these amendments is expected as early as Thursday afternoon.