FAIRBANKS — The debate over “cap and trade” legislation to curb fossil fuel emissions has been heating up Alaska’s U.S. Senate campaign.
The Alaska Republican Party and the campaign for Republican nominee Joe Miller have hit GOP write-in candidate Lisa Murkowski and Democrat Scott McAdams hard on the cap and trade issue, saying in ads that their support for the legislation will result in higher taxes, energy prices and unemployment. Murkowski and McAdams say that is an unfair characterization of their positions on the issue.
Polluters are issued permits for each ton of carbon they emit under a cap and trade system, and companies that reduce their output are able to sell permits they don’t need. Critics say the system amounts to a tax on the use of fossil fuels.
The basis for cap and trade legislation is grounded in the belief, shared by most scientists, that fossil fuel emissions are contributing to climate change. Assessing penalties for burning fossil fuels will spur producers and consumers to find cleaner alternatives, supporters of the concept say.
Alaska’s Senate candidates disagree on whether that underlying premise of a human role in global warming is legitimate.
Miller is a skeptic, saying on his campaign website that “science supporting manmade climate change is inconclusive.” McAdams said he believes that “climate change is real and that there is a human impact on climate change.” Murkowski has said she believes human-produced gases are contributing to global warming but that she is uncertain to what degree.
Miller is the most critical of any form of “carbon tax” or cap and trade bill. Miller strongly opposes any such legislation, which he believes is unconstitutional.
He said the penalties tied to cap and trade — specifically in a version passed by the House this year — will be a devastating drag on the nation’s economy. As a fix for “something that may not even exist,” he says on his campaign website, the cost is too steep.
“The problem with all the advocates for cap and trade and carbon taxes is that they don’t evaluate the actual adverse impact, how it harms people,” Miller said at a recent candidate forum. “The cost-benefit analysis has not been done.”
Miller also has criticized the 2007 Low Carbon Economy Act, which included Murkowski and Sen. Ted Stevens as co-sponsors. Miller says it still amounted to a cap and trade scheme and was “the wrong way to go.”
Murkowski defends that bill, which did not pass the Senate, as a net benefit for Alaska. It included more modest greenhouse gas reduction goals than those of other recent climate bills, along with what McKie Campbell, Republican director of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, called “cap and trade elements.” He said the bill would have provided about $40 billion in funding for climate adaptation in Alaska during the next two decades, along with other sources of support.
Murkowski has criticized more recent efforts to pass cap and trade legislation and was among the leaders of a successful effort to kill the House bill this year in the Senate. She said that proposal went too far and would end up paralyzing the economy.
“A cap and trade bill would kill this country,” Murkowski said at a candidate forum on Monday. “It would kick it in the gut.”
McAdams doesn’t stake out a firm position on cap and trade legislation, saying instead that the issue is “dead on arrival” in the Senate. He said the support simply isn’t there, particularly among the coal-producing states of the Midwest.
“I don’t think it’s possible to get cap and trade done,” he said.
McAdams said the most realistic way to ease carbon emissions is for the federal government to embrace alternative fuels. That includes promoting a gas pipeline in Alaska, which would deliver a cleaner form of fuel than coal or oil.
All three candidates agree that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency shouldn’t play a role in regulating greenhouse gases, as the agency has proposed.
Contact staff writer Jeff Richardson at 459-7518.
And If Lisa is so important to us then what exactly has she done to help Alaska? Welfare? Obama care? A billion dollar bridge to her Gravina Island retreat that made us all look like fools?
Do we have any new roads? No. Any new development at all? No. The North Slope will look like Al Gore's mind(uninhabited) after 6 more years of Murkowski and 300 more reach across-es.
Vote for Miller, you know you have to.
And yes... I will remember to fill in the oval. ;-)
The most basic constitutional right to life is the first to be rejected, followed by supporting the concept that children belong to the state and not their nuclear families.
itsallaboutalaska supports the communist Chinese policy of limiting the number of children a family can have and childofsol supports the state forcing the type of education a child can have.
The NEA controlled education system is a failure and is compromising our ability to compete in a global economy.
The "solutions" for the naturally occuring changes in climate are a laundry list of the socialist agenda, seeking to control every aspect of the economy and people's lives.
The so called global warming label has been changed to "climate change" to cover all variances and events to reach the same conclusion for the need of government control.
The various examples of corruption and manipulation I posted are only a partial list.
Obama's energy policy is destructive to the nation and Alaska in particular. Scott will be a Begich, Jr. and vote with the Dems on every bill.
Of course the science isn't settled. Science ISN'T settled. Science is open to new information.
You begin your list with Climategate. Do some research yourself, and you will discover that fossil fuel interests largely put the 'gate' in Climategate. The issue in no way changed the consensus about climate change.
I don't have the inclination to go into the rest of your bs right now, but will say this:
1. There always have been and always will be flaws in data collection, analysis, and dissimination. Human beings engage in science, and to err is human. Lying, exaggerating, cheating and stealing are also human traits, and occur sometimes in all professions.
2. You compiled the list so that a single 'gate' was separated into two or more, thereby making it seem as though there were more 'gates' than there actually are.
3. Any mistakes or fraud committed in the furtherance of AGW pale in comparison to the money-backed spread told by climate denialists like Don Blankenship and the Koch Brothers.
You might consider looking at reality of where the other 49 Republican senators are going and admit Lisa would be toast. Worse, Lisa will be playing the spoiler flirting with the Dems like Specter did. Lisa also has well known ethics issues as a senator, she needs to be retired.
McAdams is also dodging the question on cap-and-trade, saying "it's dead!" when in fact it really is not. It never is. It's been around for 10 years and people will still want it after the election. I just saw an interview with the President, and he said that energy is one of his top priorities for next year. Scott will be expected to fall in with the party line, and I see no indication that he will not do that, even if the bill is as terrible as the one passed by the House of Representatives last year.
Vote Scott McAdams if you want Alaska to lose out on energy development and energy prices to become more expensive.
Vote Joe Miller if you want Alaska's energy to stay locked up in the ground while he fights with Democrats over unrelated issues.
Vote Murkowski if you want a steady, practical, and pragmatic Senator who will work with anyone who wants to help Alaska develop its resources.
1. Supporter of the liberal agenda whose party will keep the north slope locked up.
2. Extremist who will sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee trying to renege on the Alaska Statehood Act by taking federal land for the state.
3. A powerful pragmatic senator who has the highest seniority on the Energy and Natural Resources committee and who has stood up to the Dept of the Interior's efforts to stop our development.
This is a no-brainer. Fill it in, write it in.
After this year the corrupt union bosses will be minimized with the FASB rules going into effect and the full scope of the imploding union pensions having come to the forefront. Instead of having hundreds of millions to pour into elections the union bosses will be in court and explaining their actions of pursuing personal power and lifestyle over looking out for their membership.