Idaho Politics: Senate

Craig, Crapo Critical of Climate Security Act

Guest opinion and press statements from the two Senators agree.

By Jill Kuraitis, 6-06-08



	Caption: Senators Crapo and Craig

Idaho Republican Senators Larry Craig and Mike Crapo both had something to say today about the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, on which the Senate voted to continue debate.

Who Cares About Global Warming Anyway?
by: Senator Larry Craig

If you remember Al Gore’s Oscar-winning movie and his visit to Boise, you might be shocked to learn how the Democrat-led Congress actually handled an issue some say is the most important crisis of our time. You may not even have known this debate was going on, considering how disorganized, brief and superficial the debate was.

Let me say at the outset that I have spent an enormous amount of time on the issue of reducing our greenhouse gases without increasing energy prices at the pump or on your electricity bill. Last year I offered 46 amendments to Sen. Boxer’s climate change bill when it was reviewed by the Committee on Environment and Public Works. These were serious amendments addressing various aspects of this lengthy, complicated bill, yet all but one of my amendments – calling for a study – were rejected. Chairman Boxer claimed at the time that amendments to manage our forests, promote nuclear energy, or protect consumers from high energy prices should be saved for the Senate floor debate.

Now we know why: after a couple of days for political posturing to the environmental community, Majority Leader Harry Reid used his leadership privileges to block amendments and limit debate, and then pulled the bill from further consideration.

To put this in context, consider that back in 1990, the Senate spent five weeks on the Clean Air legislation and dealt with 180 amendments. Today’s global warming bill dramatically exceeded the Clean Air Act in scope and impact, yet efforts to explore the consequences of this far-reaching legislation were cut off after only a few hours of discussion, and without allowing any debate or votes on amendments to the bill.

The exercise that the Senate went through this week has become commonplace for this increasingly dysfunctional Congress. Debates begin with the press releases already written; legislating has become an afterthought. This is particularly disappointing for those of us who have spent time learning the issues and working on constructive policies, in the belief that Congress has a responsibility to offer solutions for the problems that plague our country.

For those of us who do support finding meaningful and responsible ways to reduce greenhouse gases, I regret the Senate’s performance. I would also encourage you to watch my forestry and gas price speeches on the issue and to read the amendments I tried to offer at my website: craig.senate.gov/climate

There are also actions to reduce greenhouse gases that you and your family can take. For instance, you can reduce the amount of fuel you use – helping both your wallet and the environment. I’ve found many helpful fuel-saving ideas at http://www.drivesmarterchallenge.org, a website maintained by the non-partisan Alliance to Save Energy on whose board I sit. If all U.S. drivers followed just one of these suggestions to reduce our driving by 5%, we could save more than $24 billion worth of gasoline, sending fewer dollars to foreign cartels, keeping more money in your pocketbook, and – oh, yes: putting fewer greenhouse gases into our environment… for those of us who care.

Senator Crapo issued this press release titled “This Global Warming Bill Did Not Add Up.”

Idaho Senator Mike Crapo said today that the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act was incomplete in its approach and too expensive to garner the support it needed in the Senate. Crapo, along with many of his colleagues from both sides of the aisle, found the legislation would raise energy costs too high for consumers.

“I don’t believe that legislation which could raise energy prices by almost 140% is what we need at a time when we are already paying record prices for electric bills and at the pump,” Crapo said. Action on the legislation was halted in a cloture vote, which is a procedural move to end debate and bring the bill to a final vote. Cloture actions require 60 votes to succeed. The final vote on the bill was 48 to 36. Crapo voted with 35 other Senators to continue debate on the legislation.

Crapo said the bill should have included more incentives for clean-burning energy technology like nuclear power production. He added Idaho and neighboring states also did not receive appropriate recognition for clean hydropower energy already produced in the Northwest. “Because 80% of our electricity is provided by non-emitting hydropower and wind, Idaho citizens currently have one of the lowest carbon footprints per capita in the country,” he said. “This bill fails to recognize that fact and could severely impact the economy of our state. As we are one of the fastest-growing states, we need to ensure that we continue to have access to affordable energy to meet the needs of Idahoans.”

Crapo noted the Kyoto Agreement on climate change was not ratified by the Senate because it did not require all nations to abide by the same rules. He said some countries would have to do more than others to reduce economic activities.

“Before the United States commits to any widescale reduction of carbon emissions, it is critical to ensure that we have the technology to do so in a way that will not hurt American families and industry,” Crapo added. “A better idea is to refine this approach and keep working on the issue and that is what the Senate today decided.”

[End of article]

Comment By Craig Moore, 6-06-08

Congressman Rhorbach said it best in my opinion.

rohrabacher.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=91424

Also, Roger Pielke Sr., explains why the fixation on C02 is so misguided. climatesci.org/2008/03/31/roger-a-pielke-srs-perspective-on-the-role-of-humans-in-climate-change/

>>>>>>>>>
Policies that focus on CO2 by itself are ignoring definitive research results (such as reported in the 2005 National Research Council report) that humans have a much broader influence on the climate system than was communicated in the 2007 IPCC report. To neglect these other climate forcings represents a failure by policymakers (and the media) to utilize this scientifically robust information.

The neglect of including the diversity of human climate forcings indicates that the real objective of those promoting the radiative effect of the addition of atmospheric CO2 as the dominate human climate forcing is to promote energy and lifestyle changes. Their actual goal is not to develop effective climate policies.
<<<<<<<<

Comment By Craig Moore, 6-06-08

should be Congressman Rohrabacher not Rhorbach. Bad typo.

Comment By Tim from MT, 6-06-08

Surprise, Surprise two Republicans and Craig More crawl out from under their rocks to recite what Exxon and Shell claim is "legitimate" science. What's truly funny about this is these guys can't bring themselves to believe the 99% but seem to think that the outspoken 1% is somehow more credible just because they are glorified by the right wing spin machine.

I honestly know a republican that believes Coal and Oil are renewable resources because World Net Daily and Rush Limbaugh promoted a book that claimed it. He pretended to read the book for two months but I don't think he ever finished it.

I have no doubt that if I advertised a book on WND or the Limbo Show that claimed the moon was made of cheese and it had some sort of anti left spin in it these morons would recite it as if it was gospel.

I've long wished someone would do it just to see how gullible the average republican is.

Comment By Craig Moore, 6-06-08

It's no surprise Tim from MT that you, once again, have nothing to offer but insults.

Comment By Jill Kuraitis, 6-06-08

Warning to all commenting here: Read the comment policy and stick to it. Speak to the issues, using reason, facts and persuasiveness. Cut out the name-calling. I challenge you to pick up your arguments again and re-state them.

Comment By Craig Moore, 6-06-08

The Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act is, by it's title, a fraud in my opinion. By controlling carbon emissions generated in the US and creating a tax, cap and trade structure would not change the temperature or alter climate cycles one iota. Europe's attempt at a similar structure is a complete failure. Asia is belching out carbon emissions at an increasing rate that far surpass anything we can even begin to offset. Congressman Rohrabacher points to things that we can control that make a real difference to our health and environment. Roger Pielke, Sr. points to humankind's dramatic impact to the environment from land use and the like. His Climate Science blog is full of peer reviewed information.

Comment By Marion, 6-07-08

I was very disappointed that these two otherwise reasonable gentlemen would come up with such a far fetched expensive idea, it was definitely not what one would have expected from them.
I am grateful that it crashed and burned. Our country is going to be in serious trouble fast if we don't get sensible about fuel. We are breaking the most important people in the country....the working class. If we are determined not to obtain our own supply in defference to the enviros, then we simply must mandate speed limits of 55 mph and fuel rationing. The well to do, gov't and corporate people on expense accounts and care nothing about the cost driving the price up further.

Comment By flounder, 6-07-08

I think the Republican temper tantrum that led to the entire 500 page bill having to be read out loud in the Senate in order to stall this was perfect. It summed up the Republican style of governance and stalled a half-baked bill.
My thought is that we give put off trying to do anything until January. Then we won't even have to worry about "wide stance" destroying the bill with poison-pill amendments. Dems will have a larger working majority and a President who isn't going to veto the whole thing anyways.
Marion, this would be a perfect forum for you to confuse weather and climate again.

Comment By Inky, 6-07-08

When Congress-critters are bought and paid for by Big Energy, Exxon and Peabody get what they pay for.
It really is that simple.
Here's a challenge: go to http://www.opensecrets.org and look up Craig and Crapo, or the anyone else who voted against this bill. Are ANY of them untainted by Big Energy money?

Comment By Chris, 6-07-08

Considering the current state of the economy, the fact that this type of bill is even being considered is ridiculous. It would do nothing but further cripple the economy.

Besides the fact that the whole global warming (now PR-firmed into being termed "climate change" due to the reality of global cooling) is a hoax meant only to be used to further control and tax. Climate change has been occurring throughout time and is not man-made. Of course we should be individually responsible, recycle, voluntarily return to the use of more organic substances in every aspect of society (mainly to avoid the disease causing effects of dangerous chemicals), but the demonizing of a gas like CO2, which plants breathe, is insane.

This is the advice we should be following:
"UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction:" An open Letter Signed By Over 100 International Scientists & Climatologists. "It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages..."

<a

Comment By Chris, 6-07-08

Overwhelming Majority of Americans Oppose Lieberman-Warner Global Warming Proposal

This is the bill we should be supporting:

House bill H.R. 2415, short-titled the "Affordable Gas Price Act," as introduced on May 21, 2007. The official title of the bill states its purpose:

To reduce the price of gasoline by allowing for offshore drilling, eliminating Federal obstacles to constructing refineries and providing incentives for investment in refineries, suspending Federal fuel taxes when gasoline prices reach a benchmark amount, and promoting free trade.

Then lets also work on promoting free market solutions to the energy crisis. The self-aggrandizing blame game Congress is playing is getting us nowhere and will have the effect of shooting ourselves in the foot economically and with regard to energy.

Comment By Craig Moore, 6-07-08

10 Dem Senators sent a letter to their leadership saying they could not support this bill. Those senators are:

Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
Senator John D. Rockefeller (D-WV)
Carl Levin (D-MI)
Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)
Mark Pryor (D-AR)
Jim Webb (D-VA)
Evan Bayh (D-IN)
Clair McCaskill (D-MO)
Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
Ben Nelson (D-FL).

Comment By joncheever, 6-07-08

Sadly the Idaho Republicans again miss the mark in their rationale for rejecting the Lieberman climate change act. But I do agree with them that the act had flaws--the primary flaw being that there is a a much more effective way to reduce our production of carbon than cap and trade. The real solution? A (gasp) carbon tax.

A carbon tax would provide incentives for people to use less fuel in a multitude of ways. By contrast, merely having more efficient cars encourages more driving. Increased driving not only produces more carbon, but also exacerbates other problems, like accidents and road congestion.

But the history of cap-and-trade systems, such as those proposed under the Leiberman bill, suggests that the allowances would probably be handed out to power companies and other carbon emitters, which would then be free to use them or sell them at market prices. In this case, the prices of energy products would rise as they would under a carbon tax, but the government would collect no revenue to reduce other taxes and compensate consumers.

The international dimension of the problem also suggests the superiority of a carbon tax over cap-and-trade. Any long-term approach to global climate change will have to deal with the emerging economies of China and India. By some reports, China is now the world’s leading emitter of carbon, in large part simply because it has so many people.

Agreement on a truly global cap-and-trade system, however, is hard to imagine. China is unlikely to be persuaded to accept fewer carbon allowances per person than the United States.

A global carbon tax would be easier to negotiate. All governments require revenue for public purposes. The world’s nations could agree to use a carbon tax as one instrument to raise some of that revenue. No money needs to change hands across national borders. Each government could keep the revenue from its tax and use it to finance spending or whatever form of tax relief it considered best.

Comment By Marion, 6-07-08

No another tax would NOT solve the problem. That sounds like something from a politician or an enviro, neither of who have a clue about reality. Do you have a clue how dependent we are on trucks to deliver a huge amount of what we use? We are starting to put smaller guys out of business with the current prices, as they go, big operators will increase their prices, they will have to. Then we cannot afford gas or food.
We need to set the enviros in a corner to contemplate, and we need to start drilling for oil in our own country. We must do something before we put the working blue collar guys out of business and out of their homes. Those who have their fuel furnished don't mind, but others are in trouble. Those who are rich don't care....until they find out there is nobody to bring them all of the things they need.
No, we do not need higher prices, we need to use our own oil. It wouldn't hurt to impose a mandatory 55mph speed limit either.

Comment By Craig Moore, 6-07-08

I believe the indirect tax effect of the cap and trade scheme was projected to raise something like 6.7 trillion dollars by 2050. I can only assume a carbon tax would do the same. We are headed to $5 a gal gas by July 4th without any further taxation.

Have extremely high tobacco and alcohol taxes curbed consumption in any meaningful way? Wouldn't govt just become 'hooked' on the new carbon revenue like the sin tax revenue?

Comment By joncheever, 6-08-08

A carbon tax must be the central mechanism for reducing carbon emissions.

Currently, the prices of gasoline, electricity and fuels in general include none of the costs associated with devastating climate change.

This omission of the true cost of environmental damage from fossil fuels suppresses incentives to develop and deploy carbon-reducing measures such as energy efficiency (e.g., high-mileage cars and high-efficiency heaters and air conditioners), renewable energy (e.g., wind turbines, solar panels), low-carbon fuels (e.g., biofuels from high-cellulose plants), and conservation-based behavior such as bicycling, recycling and overall mindfulness toward energy consumption. Conversely, taxing fuels according to their carbon content will infuse these incentives at every chain of decision and action -- from individuals’ choices and uses of vehicles, appliances, and housing, to businesses’ choices of new product design, capital investment and facilities location, and governments’ choices in regulatory policy, land use and taxation.

Comment By Marion, 6-08-08

Just what exactly is climate change and what are you going to do about it? Turn Phoenix, Arizona into Nome, Alaska?
Rather than new taqxes, let's ration fuel for everyone. The folks in McMansions would be able to buy fuel at the same amount as the guy in a thousand sq. foot house, it would be up to them to manage. The enviro wanting to drive/fly all over the country shutting down drilling rigs and coal mines would get the same amount of fuel as the guy driving 20 miles to work those mines or oil rigs. The big shot with a hundred thousand dollar RV would get the same amount for vacation fuel as the family in a midsize, so woudl the family driving a rice rocket.
The country made the transition from horses to autos with coal fired trains in the mix without a single tax. Many folks are working on alternative fuels right now. There are a couple of roadblocks, politicians, and ethe biggie is environmental lawsuits. If we get the enviros with their lawyers and judges out of the way, we can continue to build the greatest country on earth.

Comment By Craig Moore, 6-08-08

I disagree with Jon. There is no "must" mechanism. Furthermore, until such time as there can be demonstrated a cause and effect linkage, with at least an 80% confidence factor, of US carbon reduction to intended climate modification results, using any mechanism that takes over $6 trillion out of the US economy should not be instituted. It's a very bad investment to have a negative ROI as the Europeans are finding out. Furthermore, the fixation on carbon misses addressing humankind's other climate forcings such as land use that denudes rain forests.

By the way, I enjoy Jon's straightforward argumentation on the issues. Refreshing to have a difference of opinion without the insults.

Comment By joncheever, 6-08-08

A carbon tax is the best, cheapest and most efficient way to combat cataclysmic climate change.

Cap-and-trade isn't the most effective or efficient approach. While cap-and-trade creates opportunities for cheating leads to unpredictable fluctuations in energy prices and does nothing to offset high power costs for consumers, carbon taxes can be structured to sidestep all those problems while providing a more reliable market incentive to produce clean-energy technology. Carbon taxes would also avoid price volatility which has been endemic to some existing cap-and-trade systems.

A carbon tax simply imposes a tax for polluting based on the amount emitted, thus encouraging polluters to clean up and entrepreneurs to come up with alternatives. The tax is constant and predictable. It doesn't require the creation of a new energy trading market, and it can be collected by existing state and federal agencies. It's straightforward and much harder to manipulate by special interests than the politicized process of allocating carbon credits. And it could be structured to be far less harmful to power consumers.

Comment By Marion, 6-08-08

Jon, what exactly is cataclysmic climate change, how do we know it is or isn't happening?
Every tax of every kind comes form the people's pockets, how could that help keep a nation productive? How will we tax anyone when a forest burns, or if so who who might be the taxed?
What about a major volcano eruption?
Is there actually any harmful human effect from CO2 emissions? Why not spend the money used to try to develop these stringent laws for research? Since environmental groups are all tax exempt, how about making it mandatory that a certain percent of the money they take in be spent on research, at least match the dollars they spend on lawsuits? Wouldn't that make a far bigger difference than trying to break companies that someone might not like?

Comment By joncheever, 6-08-08

How carbon taxes are enacted, and how we as a nation use the revenue, is the key to acceptability. But it's the only way to truly price the impacts of carbon, and let those who want to continue carbon use pay the appropriate amount.

There's a nice analysis of an elegant way to handle carbon taxes in the NY Times on June 6th from James Hansen, NASA's leading climate scientist. Here's an excerpt:

"A tax on coal, oil and gas is simple. It can be collected at the first point of sale within the country or at the last (e.g., at the gas pump), but it can be collected easily and reliably. You cannot hide coal in your purse; it travels in railroad cars that are easy to spot. “Cap,” in addition, is a euphemism that may do as much harm as good. The public is not stupid.

The entire carbon tax should be returned to the public, with a monthly deposit to their bank accounts, an equal share to each person (if no bank account provided, an annual check — social security number must be provided). No bureaucracy is needed to figure this out. If the initial carbon tax averages $1,200 per person per year, $100 is deposited in each account each month. (Detail: perhaps limit to four shares per family, with child shares being half-size, i.e., no marriage penalty but do not encourage population growth.)

A carbon tax will raise energy prices, but lower and middle income people, especially, will find ways to reduce carbon emissions so as to come out ahead.

Product demand will spur economic activity and innovation. The rate of infrastructure replacement, thus economic activity, can be modulated by how fast the carbon tax rate increases. Effects will permeate society.

Food requiring lots of carbon emissions to produce and transport will become more expensive and vice versa — it is likely, e.g., that the U.K. will stop importing and exporting 15,000 tons of waffles each year. There will be a growing price incentive for life style changes needed for sustainable living.

The present political approach is to set carbon emission reduction goals for 2025 or 2050. The politicians do not expect the goals to be reached, and they define escape hatches that guarantee they will not. They expect to be retired or become lobbyists before the day of reckoning. The goals are mainly for bragging rights: “Mine is bigger than yours!”

The worst thing about the present inadequate political approach is that it will generate public backlash. Taxes will increase, with no apparent benefit. The reaction would likely delay effective emission reductions, so as to practically guarantee that climate would pass tipping points with devastating consequences for nature and humanity.

Carbon tax and 100% dividend, on the contrary, will be a breath of fresh air, a boon and boom for the economy. The tax is progressive, the poorest benefiting most, with profligate energy users forced to pay for their excesses. Incidentally, it will yield strong incentive for aliens to become legal; otherwise they receive no dividend while paying the same carbon tax rate as everyone.

Special interests and their lobbyists in alligator shoes will fight carbon tax and 100% dividend tooth and nail. They want to determine who gets your tax money in the usual Washington way, Congress allocating money program by program, substituting their judgment for that of the market place. The lobbyists can afford the shoes. Helping Washington figure out how to spend your money is a very lucrative business.

But we can save the planet and alligators by making sure that not one thin dime of the carbon tax is siphoned off by lobbyists for their clients — 100% must be returned to citizens as dividend. Make this your motto: “100% or fight! No alligator shoes!”

###

Comment By bear bait, 6-08-08

Last year, 2007, 775,000 acres of wildland fire in Oregon produced as much greenhouse gas as 11,000,000 average cars driving 24/7/365. Wildland fire put as much greenhouse gas tonnage in the air as did ALL man made sources in Oregon. If the wildland fire acres could be cut by half, through fuel removal, (logging is a primary fuel removal mechanism), through no WFU program, through careful fire prevention and timely fire fighting efforts, green house gases could be reduced by 25% in the first year. Anyone have a better, faster, more available way to meet that goal?

Comment By Craig Moore, 6-09-08

Bear bait, as you know this is not about carbon gases. This is about raising over $6 trillion in new federal revenue for political purposes.

Comment By flounder, 6-09-08

Marion just basically endorsed Obama's Global Warming plan. Auctioning carbon credits takes some money made from profiting on carefree polluting and feeds it back into research into non polluting energy sources.
I'm amazed.

Comment By i83701, 6-09-08

Climate change legislation was not expected to pass this year, in the current form and veto the threat from the White House.
Residents of western states must maintain the pressure on politician's on these issues. During this election season we in Idaho must have Risch, LaRocco, Sali, Minnick addreess this future legislation, this debate, will require these politicans to take a stand against there corporate donors on some difficult questions that will be top topic for years to come.

Western states have been targeted by the nuclear industries and coal fired plants. Craig and Crapo will never support anything with there corporate energy interests, Idaho Power has abandon plans for coal fire plant due to inevitable new restrictions from a new administration.

Why not solar? As of June 2007 Nevada Solar One opened, the third largest solar power plant in the world, generating 64MW, approx. 45,000 homes, second largest opened in Arizona 2006, Largest in Spain.

Comment By bear bait, 6-09-08

Craig: I know. I have to keep my eye on the ball. Try to remember which walnut shell it is under. But Gorites and the Ecobabble Left keep changing, switching, moving the three shells, and it is hard to remember under which the ball resides at any given moment.

It is June 9th, again overcast, a cool 54, and my crop is beginning to suffer from lack of sunlight. I have Vitamin D deficiency and just took my 50,000 unit horse bolus. Rain this afternoon, maybe. Try as I might, I can't find the reason why wildland fire is not a global warming issue. I guess I am not nefarious enough to track politics and explore the need for world domination by NGOs. Simplistically, I will continue to believe the environment is a means to one world government which is doomed to failure, which will cause more grief, strife and warfare than any other causes yet. If there are fighting street gangs in Chicago, killing at will, it is obvious their government has no answers, no means of providing for peace on earth. So why should I buy into any of their politicians, and any of their politicians' goals and ideas? Sen Durbin is at the forefront of the $6Trilliion charge for saving something, the carbon pea under the climate shell, and many believe the rookie junior Senator is a saviour as well. Personally, I don't think his 16 months in office and two years running for President have done much to make him much more than a parrot for his Lefty Ecobabble supporters.

As a Blue Dog Democrat, I guess I am going to vote for the candidate who is NOT a lawyer. Lawyers are trained to have no moral values, only to advocate for their client. I don't think you can be of the profession that gets guilty people freed on procedural issues, and lead the country. Personal Blue Dog Democrat opinion. And as a Dog, I am in the fight, and won't let go of the wildland fire emissions bone.

Comment By i83701, 6-09-08

Bear Bait, first stop let it burn policy, some must burn, but those that can be extinguished must be.

This archaic forest service fire management policy no different than industrial pollution at this point in time, Western US lung problems have skyrocketed from the wildfire mis-management an it pollution, Boise gets hammered by smoke form prescribed burns and mis-managed wild fires.

Comment By Jay Kanta, 6-09-08

Good thing it was a cold winter and spring, otherwise the Arctic Ice might be thinner and less expansive than ever before.

Oooops, it is. So that means that the expected range of ice by fall of this year will be close to what it was last year, increasing albedo and Arctic ocean temperatures.

Oh, and nice way for the anti-environment people to ignore the heat that Europe has been experiencing all spring, as if the US is the only country and/or landmass that matters.

I'll agree that this legislation was too far reaching and wasn't focussed enough to actually make the changes that are going to be required into the future. Larry Craig, however, makes an even bigger mistake when he tries to explain his stance: he argues that regulation of oil companies and their profits are somehow going to be bad for America, that we need to continue to expand on tax breaks for Exxon/Mobile and the other major oil players.

And Sali? We need to increase the tax rebates for oil companies and screw northern Idaho counties out of timber dollars they've been counting on for years.

Comment By Craig Moore, 6-09-08

Regarding the current state of global sea ice, see: http://www.arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg