Financial Elite Moving Forward with Carbon Emissions Scam

EPA Bill Passes House Committee Amid Climate Science Debate

March 16, 2011

GovExec.com - After a full day of debate on amendments and impassioned political statements, the House Energy and Commerce Committee voted on Tuesday to slash the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.

While the Republican majority voted unanimously in favor of the measure, which passed 34-19, three Democrats, Reps. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, John Barrow, D-Ga., and Mike Ross, D-Ark., sided with the majority.

Earlier in the day, moderate Democrats, sure to note that they believe climate change is happening, offered up an amendment to ensure that Congress steps into the role the committee voted to strip from EPA.

The amendment, offered by Matheson and amended by Rep. Charlie Bass, R-N.H., to ensure sure that any policy would not adversely affect the economy, energy supplies, and job creation, passed by voice vote.

But Democrats said that was not enough.

"If we don't legislate and we don't regulate, we will do nothing about the problem," Energy and Commerce ranking member Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said, arguing that saying Congress should be in charge is not the same as actually addressing greenhouse-gas pollution.

Certain that the legislation would pass the full committee, committee Democrats spent the majority of the markup making political statements about Republican climate-science denial.

Democrats, such as Waxman and Reps. Jay Inslee, D-Wash., Diana DeGette, D-Colo., and Doris Matsui, D-Calif., offered a series of amendments related to climate science, the EPA endangerment finding, and the public health effects of greenhouse-gas emissions and climate change -- all of which were rejected by the Republican majority.

"You can disagree with how EPA acts ... but this is science denial. It's not worthy of this committee," Waxman said.

Setting it up so that Republicans would vote against the amendments, Democrats were essentially trying to shine a spotlight on their rejection of the science.

"Now in the permanent record will illustrate what it means to be on the wrong side of history and the wrong side of science," Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., warned Republicans who voted in lockstep against all climate-change related amendments.

But Republicans have walked a fine line on climate science. Though Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich., and Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield, R-Ky., have repeatedly noted that "this bill is not about the science," Democrats have made sure to point out that its effects are an "affront on science."

Not allowing themselves to be boxed in as anti-science zealots, many Republicans, excluding Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, shied away from denying climate change during the markup.

"We should not put the U.S. economy in a straitjacket because of a theory that has not been proven," Barton said, maintaining that climate change is a tenuous issue.

Instead of going that far, other GOP committee members walked on the safe side of the Republican aisle, arguing that the bill is a criticism of EPA regulation as a solution to any such problems, as opposed to an attack on science.

Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-Calif., said that while he is frustrated with those that deny that a climate change problem exists, the EPA rules are not a real solution, he argued.

"We are literally being passed a placebo by the EPA," Bilbray said. "If you say it's a problem, let's talk about solutions."

In addition to rejecting amendments from Democrats related to climate science, Republicans also shot down amendments addressing public health risks, such as asthma, and health care costs associated with greenhouse-gas emissions and climate change.

As they had before, the committee debated whether the bill preserves fuel efficiency standards when Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., offered an amendment that would allow the EPA to have authority over greenhouse-gas emissions, so long as their actions reduce U.S. demand for oil.

"In voting no, you are providing the funding for our enemies in the Middle East," Markey urged his colleagues.

But committee members on both sides of the aisle rejected Markey's amendment, questioning whether to entrust energy security to the EPA.

The bill is expected to clear the House and will get a full vote before the Easter recess, House Majority Leader Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., told National Journal Daily on Monday.

"The sooner, the better," Whitfield said of a floor vote. "I knew that they wanted to move it along quickly."

• House subcommittee votes to curb EPA authority 03/10/11
• House spending bill's deep cuts to EPA set negotiating point with Senate 02/22/11
• Two new bills take aim at EPA authority 01/31/11

U.S. Envoy for Climate Change: Carbon Emissions 'Very Linked' to 'Economic Growth'

December 20, 2010

CNSNews.com - Todd Stern, Special Envoy for Climate Change at the U.S. Department of State said the “movement” of carbon emissions is “very linked” to the movement of “economic growth,” adding that the U.S. will not be able to get China to have a “below zero reduction in emissions” while their economy is growing at 10 percent.

“Our position on China is that China needs to make significant reductions in its emissions but for China or other developing countries at this stage those are going to be relative reductions. Those are going to be reductions against the so-called business as usual path that they would be on so given, when countries, whether its China or India or others are growing at you know, 6, 8, 10% you can't slam the brakes on completely and say you’ve got a be making absolute reductions tomorrow,” he told reporters on Dec. 14 at a briefing on his recent trip to the United Nations Climate Change conference in Cancun, Mexico.

“It just couldn't work because don't forget; while the critical direction that we need to move on is to separate growth from the path of emissions so that growth goes up but emissions can still go down because you’ve got so much of your energy coming from low carbon sources and so forth,” he said.

Stern continued,

“At this stage in life, the movement of emissions is very much – is very linked to the movement of economic growth so you're not going to get a Chinese economy growing at 10% to have a below zero reduction in emissions but what you can have is a very significant reduction against what they would otherwise be doing and so that is the focus and that has been our focus consistently.”

Stern was also asked to comment on climate statistics cited in a BBC News interview by Professor Phil Jones, the director of the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University. Jones said there has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995.

“I’m not a scientist so I’m not going to comment and I’m not familiar with exactly what he said,” Stern responded. “I think that if you look at the warming that has been recorded on a steady basis for over the last 20 years or so you will see very significant rise in temperatures over time and I think if you look at the last 20 years, you have something like the 15 or 18 warmest years in history having happened during that period.”

He continued, “So, I think there’s a very, very broad consensus of scientists who see a marked warming trend and again, a very large percentage of scientists who study in this area who attribute that to human activity.”

Read More...