Climate 411

No Change to Consumer Assistance in Revised American Clean Energy & Security Act, H.R. 2454

On June 24, Republican members of the House Ways & Means Committee circulated yet another false claim about the pending clean energy bill, H.R. 2454. In an inflammatory email today, they claim that a new version of H.R. 2454 supposedly “yanks middle class tax relief” from the bill.

That’s completely false. Here are the facts:

1.    The bill was – and still is – loaded with relief for consumers.

2.    For starters, H.R. 2454 protects everyone who uses electricity by providing free allowances – worth hundreds of billions of dollars – that must be used to protect ratepayers.

3.    To further benefit American consumers, the bill provides $250 billion (in present value) of tax refunds for every taxpayer in the country, starting in 2020.

4.    Finally, to address the special needs of low-income families, the bill goes even further and provides extra relief for these households.

5.    It’s only this third type of consumer relief, directed at low-income households, that has changed at all in the new version of the bill. Even there, the amount of assistance hasn’t changed one cent. The only difference is a technical change in how that assistance would be delivered — from a tax credit to a refund.

In short, clean energy opponents’ attack machine has misfired again.

Claim:

“Christopher C. Horner, author of the book ‘Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud and Deception to Keep You Misinformed’ noted that it was Enron that invented the concept of cap and trade and then profited off it until it collapsed in disgrace. He said that Waxman-Markey would bring about ‘Soviet-style planning.'”

— From “Hoosier GOP Sound Alarm Over Cap & Trade” by Brian A. Howey, editor of the Howey Politics Indiana blog, May 27, 2009.

Truth:

Let’s set aside the fact that Christopher Horner is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which has received more than $2 million in funding over the last decade from ExxonMobil, arguably the number one corporate opponent of any climate action over the last 20 years.

Let’s also set aside the fact that Christopher Horner is also counsel to the Cooler Heads Coalition, a global warming skeptics group that exists for the express purpose of questioning global warming science and blocking climate action.

Let’s deal with the claim straight up.

Enron did not invent cap and trade. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

For one thing, Enron didn’t exist until the late 1980s after the merger of InterNorth and Houston Natural Gas. By that time, the concept of cap and trade as a policy to cut pollution had been debated for more than a decade.

Cap and trade was later codified in U.S. law in the 1990 Clean Air Act to reduce America’s acid rain pollution. The Economist crowned the acid rain cap and trade policy “probably the greatest green success story of the past decade.” (July 6, 2002).

EDF played a leading role in promoting the acid rain pollution cap, and take it from us Enron played no role in the debate what-so-ever.

As for “Soviet-style planning” – the dictionary defines HYPERBOLE as an “obvious and intentional exaggeration.” Perhaps we should amend it to include Mr. Horner’s statement.

Mr. Horner either doesn’t know what he’s talking about or is dissembling. Far from a command and control program, cap and trade is a market-based policy designed to unleash investments in the clean energy economy. By definition, it is the opposite of letting the government pick winners and losers.

In fact, the first President Bush — not exactly a promoter of Soviet style economics — signed the 1990 cap and trade law because it was a centrist, efficient way to effectively cut pollution. And it still is.

There is much to debate when it comes to how to solve global warming. We welcome Mr. Horner to the debate, but would urge him to do his homework and get his facts straight.

Claim:

“Cap and trade legislation fails the test of government that works. The cost of this policy will be certain, massive and immediate. The benefits of these policies will be dubious, miniscule and decades in the distance. I really do believe that before we take a plunge of this magnitude, people should talk it over, think it through, take a deep breath and consider whether there’s a better way to achieve goals we all agree on.”

— Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels speaking at an energy summit in Indianapolis, IN, May 27, 2009.

Truth:

First of all, cap and trade has already been proven as successful government policy. It was used in the 1990 Clean Air Act to reduce the pollution that causes acid rain.

The results? Well, the sulfur dioxide cap worked so well that The Economist crowned it “probably the greatest green success story of the past decade.” (July 6, 2002).

In the 1990s, the acid rain cap and trade program achieved 100% compliance in reducing sulfur dioxide emissions. In fact, power plants participating in the program reduced SO2 emissions 22% — 7.3 million tons — below mandated levels.

All this has been achieved at a fraction of the cost estimates. Prior to the launch of the program, costs were estimated to run from $3-$25 billion per year. After the first 2 years of the program, the costs were actually $0.8 billion per year and the long-term costs of the program are expected to be around $1.0-$1.4 billion per year, far below early projections.

The doom-and-gloomers were wrong then. And they’re wrong now.

As for taking a deep breath and talking it over, Governor Daniels may be new to the debate, but global warming has been a known and serious problem for decades.

Environmental Defense Fund first starting working on the threat of global warming in Reagan era. The Kyoto Protocol was negotiated more than 10 years ago. The McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act was first introduced in 2003. And there have been three votes in the Senate on moving forward on a cap and trade bill.

We’ve had ample time to debate the pros and cons. Governor Daniels may not want to move forward on this policy. That’s his right. But, he owes it to his constituents and the American people to base his arguments on facts, not misleading and baseless hyperbole.

Today, in an ad running in four Capitol Hill publications, the United States Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) is calling on Energy and Commerce committee members to advance the American Clean Energy and Security Act.

USCAP is a coalition of businesses and environmental organizations that have come together to call on Congress to cap carbon emissions. With the introduction of the American Clean Energy and Security Act, USCAP released a statement [PDF] on the legislation, and followed with this landmark coalition ad.

The ad references USCAP’s Blueprint for Legislative Action, which spells out how a cap on carbon emissions will protect the U.S. economy and our environment.

The Energy and Commerce committee is expected to vote the American Clean Energy and Security Act today.  We have been following the mark-up of the bill, and debunking the nay-sayers latest myths. Stay tuned for more updates.

This bill would give the “global warming Gestapo” the power to throw senior citizens out of their homes, if the homes are not up to energy-efficient building standards. “A senior citizen whose home is destroyed by a tornado .. and she wants to rebuild .. if she doesn’t rebuild according to the rules in this bill .. she is declared an unlawful occupant of her own home.” —  Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA-01)

First of all, state and local laws already require construction to meet current codes when homes are built or re-built. So, there’s nothing new here.

And it’s a good thing — it’s how we make sure homes are safe, healthy, livable and efficient. It’s also how we make sure senior citizens (and everybody else) aren’t taken advantage of by shoddy or unscrupulous builders.

What the Waxman-Markey bill does is set some broad national efficiency targets for new construction. The bill leaves it up to cities, states and building code associations to decide how to meet them — based on local weather and climate, cost-effectiveness for the region and local preferences.

In other words — pretty much the same system we’ve got now.

More importantly, the national efficiency targets require that code changes are cost effective and save people money on their power bills. Senior citizens would appreciate lower utility bills at least as much as anyone else. They would be unlikely to argue strenuously against a provision that will immediately reduce their monthly expenses and will ultimately put more money in their pocket.

As for “global warming Gestapo” .. we don’t think cute alliteration justifies anything that offensive.

The Waxman-Markey bill is “centralization run amok” and will lead to the federal government dictate what cars people drive, what fuel they use, and eventually how far they can live from their place of business — Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL)

Actually, the beauty of a carbon cap is that it allows the free market to determine the best and most cost-effective energy technologies. The federal government does not have to pick winners and losers. The technologies that work best will thrive, and more than one can thrive at the same time. Solar power may turn out to be cheap and easy in the Southwest, wind power on the Great Plains, and wave power along the Pacific coast. Reliance on a single fuel source, like oil, leads inevitably to centralization. A carbon cap will lead to exactly what Rep. Shimkus wants — less federal government control and more power in the hands of individuals and the free market.