"Voinovich's View" - The Devil's in the Details
Senator George V. Voinovich
November 14, 2009
There is a heated debate currently underway on Capitol Hill that you should be paying close attention to. The result of this debate will affect Ohio´s economy, your family´s pocketbook, and the quality of life of your children and grandchildren.
No – I´m not referring to health care reform. I´m talking about climate change.
Most agree that we must act to address climate change. But this debate is over whether or not to invest the time and effort necessary to do it in a responsible, multinational and pro-growth fashion. If Congress rushes through an irresponsible plan, Ohioans will see the loss of hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs to developing countries – like China and India – that are historically less sensitive to environmental concerns, shocking increases in natural gas, electricity and gasoline costs, and pocket-numbing decreases in household incomes.
Last year I successfully worked to defeat the Climate Security Act of 2007, which would have dealt a fatal blow to our already struggling economy. And, as a member of the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, I continue to be at the center of the climate change debate.
It is universally held that the answer to climate change lies in technology. By putting technological development and deployment first, we can truly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, move towards energy independence and create new jobs.
A successful policy to address climate change should be guided by four basic, interconnected principals: First, emissions reductions should not cause economic dislocation, or significantly increase the cost of living; Second, the availability of clean energy technologies should govern the timing of reduction requirements; Third, the legislation must provide incentives to advance the development of technology; And lastly, requirements should not put U.S. companies at a competitive disadvantage internationally through unilateral mandates.
Unfortunately, the climate change legislation now before Congress is not responsive to any of these challenges. Still, democratic leadership is knowingly attempting to push the bill through without a full economic analysis of the proposal. Without this necessary information, the Senate is making decisions in the dark – decisions that will affect every aspect of our nation´s economy and touch the lives of all Americans.
For months, I – along with several of my colleagues – have asked the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for a complete analysis so we can understand how the proposed legislation would affect global climate change, the manufacturing base of our nation, jobs and our competitiveness in the global marketplace. In fact, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson herself testified before the EPW Committee and Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) that the current analysis is incomplete and it would take five weeks to complete a new analysis.
Still, Chairman Boxer chose to ignore Administrator Jackson and hastily passed the bill out of the EPW Committee last week – without a comprehensive analysis, with no Republican support, and even with members of her own party voting "no."
Even U.S. News & World Report acknowledged the error in this decision, writing this week that because the bill covers so many issues, the legislation will have to get input from other committees – a process that will take more than five weeks anyway.
The reckless passage of this bill not only broke with long-standing committee tradition; it prevented members of both parties from offering amendments to one of the most far-reaching bills ever debated before the EPW Committee.
The American Council for Capital Formation has already concluded that the current House climate bill – on which the Senate bill is largely based – would reduce average household income in Ohio by up to $261 per year, increase energy costs by up to 20 percent, and result in a net loss of more than 100,000 Ohio jobs.
States like Ohio, which rely on coal for electricity and have a large manufacturing base, would be disproportionally hurt. This is because the bill´s mandates are not consistent with what current technologies are able to deliver, and they rely on future technologies that are not yet available in the marketplace.
Despite widespread recognition that only worldwide action can solve climate change, the Senate bill would force unilateral action by the United States. The World Trade Organization itself has recognized that a separate international agreement on climate change is the only way to guarantee a level playing field.
Americans should not suffer for symbolism while countries like China and India emit increasingly large quantities of greenhouse gasses without consequences. I will not tolerate policies that harm our economy and drive businesses overseas to countries that do not recognize their environmental responsibilities. We will then be worse off on two counts – fewer jobs in the United States and no worldwide CO2 emissions reductions.
As the climate change debate in Congress continues, I will keep pushing EPA and democratic leadership for a comprehensive analysis of any climate bill before it is brought to the floor for a vote. And, if this analysis is not provided, I will hold my colleagues accountable for their actions.
Passing comprehensive climate change and energy legislation requires more than political might. It requires a balanced policy that allows us to transition to a cleaner energy future – along with the rest of the world – while protecting Ohio´s economy.
No – I´m not referring to health care reform. I´m talking about climate change.
Most agree that we must act to address climate change. But this debate is over whether or not to invest the time and effort necessary to do it in a responsible, multinational and pro-growth fashion. If Congress rushes through an irresponsible plan, Ohioans will see the loss of hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs to developing countries – like China and India – that are historically less sensitive to environmental concerns, shocking increases in natural gas, electricity and gasoline costs, and pocket-numbing decreases in household incomes.
Last year I successfully worked to defeat the Climate Security Act of 2007, which would have dealt a fatal blow to our already struggling economy. And, as a member of the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, I continue to be at the center of the climate change debate.
It is universally held that the answer to climate change lies in technology. By putting technological development and deployment first, we can truly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, move towards energy independence and create new jobs.
A successful policy to address climate change should be guided by four basic, interconnected principals: First, emissions reductions should not cause economic dislocation, or significantly increase the cost of living; Second, the availability of clean energy technologies should govern the timing of reduction requirements; Third, the legislation must provide incentives to advance the development of technology; And lastly, requirements should not put U.S. companies at a competitive disadvantage internationally through unilateral mandates.
Unfortunately, the climate change legislation now before Congress is not responsive to any of these challenges. Still, democratic leadership is knowingly attempting to push the bill through without a full economic analysis of the proposal. Without this necessary information, the Senate is making decisions in the dark – decisions that will affect every aspect of our nation´s economy and touch the lives of all Americans.
For months, I – along with several of my colleagues – have asked the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for a complete analysis so we can understand how the proposed legislation would affect global climate change, the manufacturing base of our nation, jobs and our competitiveness in the global marketplace. In fact, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson herself testified before the EPW Committee and Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) that the current analysis is incomplete and it would take five weeks to complete a new analysis.
Still, Chairman Boxer chose to ignore Administrator Jackson and hastily passed the bill out of the EPW Committee last week – without a comprehensive analysis, with no Republican support, and even with members of her own party voting "no."
Even U.S. News & World Report acknowledged the error in this decision, writing this week that because the bill covers so many issues, the legislation will have to get input from other committees – a process that will take more than five weeks anyway.
The reckless passage of this bill not only broke with long-standing committee tradition; it prevented members of both parties from offering amendments to one of the most far-reaching bills ever debated before the EPW Committee.
The American Council for Capital Formation has already concluded that the current House climate bill – on which the Senate bill is largely based – would reduce average household income in Ohio by up to $261 per year, increase energy costs by up to 20 percent, and result in a net loss of more than 100,000 Ohio jobs.
States like Ohio, which rely on coal for electricity and have a large manufacturing base, would be disproportionally hurt. This is because the bill´s mandates are not consistent with what current technologies are able to deliver, and they rely on future technologies that are not yet available in the marketplace.
Despite widespread recognition that only worldwide action can solve climate change, the Senate bill would force unilateral action by the United States. The World Trade Organization itself has recognized that a separate international agreement on climate change is the only way to guarantee a level playing field.
Americans should not suffer for symbolism while countries like China and India emit increasingly large quantities of greenhouse gasses without consequences. I will not tolerate policies that harm our economy and drive businesses overseas to countries that do not recognize their environmental responsibilities. We will then be worse off on two counts – fewer jobs in the United States and no worldwide CO2 emissions reductions.
As the climate change debate in Congress continues, I will keep pushing EPA and democratic leadership for a comprehensive analysis of any climate bill before it is brought to the floor for a vote. And, if this analysis is not provided, I will hold my colleagues accountable for their actions.
Passing comprehensive climate change and energy legislation requires more than political might. It requires a balanced policy that allows us to transition to a cleaner energy future – along with the rest of the world – while protecting Ohio´s economy.
Print
Email
