Climate 411

“66,000 Pennsylvanians will lose their jobs … How dare you do that to my constituents.” — Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL)

Well, last we checked, Rep. Shimkus represents Illinois, not Pennsylvania.

Either way, we urge Rep. Shimkus, and everyone else, to check our www.LessCarbonMoreJobs.org, which maps 2,000 companies across America posed to grow and add jobs under a carbon cap like the one in ACES.

Pennsylvania is one of the states with the most growth potential, since they already have the factories and skilled workers that will be needed to create the infrastructure for a new, clean energy economy.

By the way, Rep. Shimkus’ own state of Illinois also has a lot of businesses that will benefit — although we appreciate his concern for the Keystone State.

But for a local view, talk to Mayor John Fetterman of Braddock, Pennsylvania. He’s been working to get ACES passed because he sees it as the best hope for reviving his struggling steel town.

“The point of this bill is to make fossil fuels more expensive … (the American Clean Energy and Security Act) Will only cause more economic hardship for farmers and small businesses.” – Rep. Glenn Thompson, Jr. (R, PA-5), 6/26/09

Rep. Thompson doesn’t get it. The point of this bill is to curb carbon pollution, not unjustly penalize those that have carbon intensive industries.

Why else would companies whose bread and butter depend on fossil fuels support this bill? Small businesses support this legislation.

The ACES Act will help many small businesses, not hurt them. Thousands of companies are already working in renewable energy or energy efficiency sectors around the country, and this bill will create demand — and customers — for their products.

Manufacturers will also benefit. For instance, one wind turbine needs 8,000 separate parts, from ball bearings to wires to blades. We already have factories getting refitted to make these parts.

“The EPA will tell our farmers how to manage their farms … this bill will tax you.” Rep Frank Lucas — (R-OK), 6/26/09

Rep. Lucas is wrong. This bill specifically prohibits agriculture from being regulated under a carbon cap, which means farmers will not be “taxed.”

However, farmers will have the opportunity to voluntarily sell offsets, if they so choose. That will be a new income source for farmers who want to take advantage of the opportunity to reduce emissions from their operations.

What’s more, under the terms of the Manager’s Amendment, this program would be administered entirely by USDA — NOT by EPA — which is what a coalition of farm-state lawmakers wanted.

(Under some provisions of the American Clean Energy and Security Act) “homeowners can be charged $100 a day for not being in compliance .. it’s a new tax on homeowners” — Rep. Judy Biggert (R-IL), 6/26/09

Here we go again with the phony cost estimates. The costs of the bill, according to EPA and CBO estimates, will be much closer to $100 per YEAR, not per DAY.

And still, climate action opponents, with no apparent regard for facts or honest debate, have repeatedly, purposefully, blatently, obnoxiously rehashed the $3100/year figure even though the MIT economist who’s study was apparently the basis for this claim has vigorously refuted it.

Where do climate action opponents get their marching orders? Kafka?

In truth, this bill would establish strong targets for energy efficiency in homes and commercial buildings — and then have states, local governments and building-industry professionals tailor local codes to meet those targets, using the same processes they already use today.

In no way does the bill suggest homeowners would be subject to fines. That’s just fiction. Rather, enforcement would remain a local matter just as it is today.

Furthermore, the bill says that new efficiency measures must be cost-effective, meaning the savings homeowners and businesses will see on their utility bills must outweigh the cost of the measures. This will help keep down costs down and reduce our national energy use all at the same time.

“The CBO and API say that gas prices are going to go up 77 cents a gallon” — Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI), 6/26/09

American Petroleum Institute (API) does say the CBO analysis ‘suggests’ gas prices would rise 77 cents a gallon.

Unfortunately, the CBO report doesn’t actually say anything of the kind — or ‘suggest’ it — or refer to it at all, really.

It’s not clear where API got this, but it’s certainly a shame Rep. Upton fell for it. A better estimate, from the EPA analysis, suggests gas prices will rise two-cents a year as a result of ACES. That’s nothing compared to the astronomical jumps in prices that brought us $4-dollar-a-gallon gas last year.

Maybe API has more information on those increases — since they do represent the oil and gas industries.