Stevens, Murkowski worried about climate change legislation
Published Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!WASHINGTON — Sens. Ted Stevens and Lisa Murkowski are concerned that landmark climate change legislation slated to come to the Senate floor today could harm Alaska’s economy.
The senators are expected to oppose the measure despite a growing catalog of impacts across the state linked to warming temperatures, including more frequent wildfires, coastal erosion and shrinking Arctic sea ice.
“Until the impact of the bill on Alaskans can be fully understood, I’m not comfortable supporting a measure that could have such a profound impact on Alaskans,” Murkowski said.
The bill, sponsored by Sens. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., and John Warner, R-Va., would create a market-based system to cut the amount of heat-trapping greenhouse gas companies can release into the atmosphere by roughly 70 percent by mid-century.
Proponents of the legislation maintain the federal government needs to take immediate and substantial action to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the most serious impacts of climate change.
But while the Lieberman-Warner bill would begin cutting emissions in 2012, critics say it would also dramatically alter the U.S. economy at a time when the dollar is in a slump and oil prices are near record highs. The price of crude oil closed above $124 per barrel Tuesday, and regular unleaded gasoline in Fairbanks was selling for as much as $4.25 per gallon.
The measure faces stiff opposition from Republicans and fiscally conservative Democrats, with few believing it has a chance of becoming law before President George W. Bush leaves office.
This week’s debate, however, is expected to lay the foundation for a future climate change law that could pass as soon as next year.
Opponents of the bill have prepared more than 100 amendments, many designed to derail debate and give both sides a face-saving excuse for tabling the proposal until the 111th Congress.
President Bush has already come out against the legislation, saying he would veto it if it reaches his desk. The White House contends the bill would be a disaster for the economy.
On Tuesday, Murkowski said she doesn’t support the current climate change legislation because of uncertainty over what it will mean for the pocketbooks of Alaskans already struggling with soaring prices at the pump.
“The problem that we have with this bill is that it’s such a moving target,” Murkowski said. “There’s still a great deal that is unknown.”
Changes are needed to ensure the legislation doesn’t further aggravate energy prices, Murkowski said.
“Alaskans are really, really hurting right now,” she said. “If we’re going to advance the Lieberman-Warner proposal, they need to know what it’s going to cost them.” The cap-and-trade system created by the bill would cap the amount of greenhouse gases that power utilities, oil refiners, manufacturers and other polluters can release into the atmosphere, giving them the ability to trade or sell extra government-issued emission permits to polluters unable to cut back.
Critics of the measure argue it will drive up the cost of power generation and manufactured goods, which will ultimately be passed on to consumers.
A spokesman for Stevens said the senator was worried about the bill’s potential impact on the state’s efforts to see a natural gas pipeline built between the North Slope to Lower 48 markets.
The state Department of Transportation advised the delegation that reducing overall statewide emissions as required by the bill would make it practically impossible to build the gas pipeline — a proposal that would easily be North America’s biggest construction project.
“Sen. Stevens is reviewing the Alaska Department of Transportation’s comments on the bill and is seriously concerned about how this legislation could impact resource development and the gas pipeline,” Stevens’ spokesman said. “However, he recognizes Alaska’s strong interest in reducing carbon emissions.”
Stevens and Murkowski both previously supported cap-and-trade legislation drafted by Sens. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., and Arlen Specter, R-Pa., which contained less aggressive reduction targets and a stronger cost-containment measure.
Murkowski said she has concerns about provisions in the Lieberman-Warner bill designed to ease emission restrictions if they’re shown to damage the economy. “I’m concerned that the strict restrictions on energy will lead to large increases in the cost of energy, which will inevitably be passed on to the consumer,” she said. “I believe we have to strike the right balance between environmental regulations and the effects on the economy.”
Murkowski said she could support Congress setting a mandatory cap on greenhouse gas emissions, but she first wants assurances that it won’t hamper development.
“We’ve got to do what we can to rein in greenhouse gas emissions, but the targets have to be achievable,” Murkowski said. “The Lieberman-Warner bill is just setting us up to fail.”
Murkowski said she’s also worried about how the bill would affect the state’s three crude oil refineries and the Usibelli Coal Mine near Healy.
“We better take the time to do this right,” she said. “If we don’t take our time now, we should be prepared for the hit when it comes.”
Economists disagree on the likely cost of the Lieberman-Warner bill to consumers. Analysis by the Environmental Protection Agency found the average American household would pay between $446 and $608 more in energy costs by 2020. In Alaska, the National Association of Manufacturers estimates by 2030 that gasoline prices would increase between 72 percent and 151 percent, electricity costs would rise as much as 49 percent and natural gas prices would rise between 111 percent to 152 percent.
The trade group estimates Alaska could lose as many as 3,710 jobs by 2020 and as many as 8,534 jobs by 2030. However, the group’s analysis did not consider new jobs created as a result of investments into renewable energy development and production.
The National Association of Manufacturers also projects the bill would result in a decline in household income in Alaska of between $1,095 to $3,552 per year by 2020 and by $4,548 to $8,294 by 2030.
The Heritage Foundation also did a study that concluded Alaska residents would likely pay 85 percent more for electricity, 68 percent more for natural gas and 50 percent more for home heating oil in 2030.
The White House, citing analysis by the EPA and the Energy Information Administration, put out a statement this week saying the bill could reduce the national gross domestic product by as much as 7 percent by 2050 and shrink domestic manufacturing by nearly 10 percent in 2030.
Republicans believe voters will balk when they see the total price tag attached to the legislation.
“We will debate this for a couple of weeks, but ultimately it is going to be tabled,” Murkowski predicted.
Contact Washington correspondent R.A. Dillon at dcnews@newsminer.com.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
If there was ever a time to reduce consumption by government mandate... It is now. We need to develop new sources of energy in the state and to progress beyond the prehistoric diesel based economy no doubt. However, we are all doomed unless we get rid of the hydrocarbon burning fetish we have developed. All of our national wealth will be transferred into the hands of foreign producers otherwise, AND we'll all be slowly smothered by rising global temperatures. Seems like even the global warming deniers and the left wing nutjobs can agree that the former of the two is of pretty immediate concern.
Name calling doesn't do much to support you argument.
IF we really want to do something to help all Americans, we should set the national speed limit to 55 mhp, manadate that all vehicles get 55 miles to the gallon of gasoline, and get serious about drilling for oil and gas on all private, state, and federal uplands all across the nation.
Too much American land is locked up by a strong environmental lobby who are also behind the Lieberman/Warner effort in Wash DC. I hope that Senator Stevens and Senator Murkowski can stop the environmental disaster that will push Alaska back into the dark ages.
"andora" has it right! We should drill all our lands, use our oil up first. That way when the only oil left is owned by the Saudis or some other Middle Eastern group we can do another George Bush and go hat-in-hand begging for oil.
Let's use up our resources first, no matter the environmental cost. Those dumb enviros! Just because they worried about oil spills and we have a leaky pipeline and the Exxon Valdez.... Well...uh...just because they scream about global warming and the vast majority of researchers are in agreement we are having an unprecedented and disastrous effect on our worldwide climate... Er..well..just because they have whined about the continuing loss of reliable, clean water and we see shortages occurring across the US as well as elsewhere in the world....
Well, heck..."andora" is still right! Let's use up all our oil and not worry about the consequences! After all, I'm sure she is right in thinking Stevens and Murkowski have only our interests at heart and couldn't care less about VECO's needs. I mean, gee whiz...doesn't everyone get free home improvements from them?
Alright, we practically have nothing to worry about concerning these matters. Why, well, we have POLITICIANS handling the situation. I ask, "Why are they addressing or even attempting to address Climate Change." apparently they got a degree on nature within the last two years,but WHEN??? Since the climate has provine itself to be real, as it if never was before, "WAS IT," a politician replies, lol
Our attention should be to pay all high or increasing prices, NO MATTER THE COST, cause we as the public enjoy supporting DEMAND, this allows the world to turn without the smaller people or less fortunate, those with less than nothing and above poverty level.
We who have money has no need to worry about those who are struggling.
At least now congress or part of it, remains to seek new opportunities, great, when will we receive the results. We know now that climate DOES CHANGE, lol But the money gots to roll over to assisting the public, which will be great but how and when???
Once I again I have to argue against the cap-and-trade method of limiting greenhouse emissions despite understanding the Coase Therom on which it is based. The cap-and-trade system is too rigid and would not bring in government revenue. A Pigovian carbon tax would lower greenhouse gases in a flexible way and bring in government revenue which could be used to offset the lost revenue of an elimination of the corporate income tax, which is much worse for the economy. The Havard economist Gregory Mankiw essentially said the same thing in the New York Times on June 01.
It's about Carbon TAX....It's BUNK. Last night ch. 13 had some UAF bimbo on about global warming. How come you don't hear about 31,000 climate prof's saying and signing a letter stating MAN does is not the cause of spikes or cooling of our EARTH.
I can see Suomi and Buboy are of the same mind that the earth is still flat. Yes, man has caused this change, our traditional knowledge supports the agruement that it is man that is the cause of these changes, and we will pay for making them, now and more later. It does not matter if we are in a ice age at the moment, and we do not feel the impacts of it, because we have so screwed up this planet so badly it will never be the same again. If it's just money we are concerned about like Murkowski and Stevens then we have no problem, we are already screwed. And why is it that only Murkowski has the courage to speak, and Stevens just mumbles in the background? Anyway, go ahead and fight as you must, nothing good will come from any arguements until sound science, in every form including our Native ways of knowing, catches up with our planet, sometime in the next decade I hope.
Humanity is clearly partly, but only partly, responsible for global warming. But this is not the real issue.
Ultimately it is about managing climate change to the point where the marginal benefits of the change + the marginal costs of cooling and slowing the warming = the marginal costs of climate change. This is called environmental economics. There are college classes and textbooks on the subject and there is always Wiki.
No doubt about it (in my hunble opinion). Since we're in a inter-glacial warming period at present, there is not one single thing (or multiple things) that can be done by Mankind that will make the least bit of difference concerning "Global Warming". Except perhaps the politicians will take advantage of the present conditions to put MY money where THEIR mouth's are. Next I presume their will be a "Global Cooling" tax, or laws and/or regulations....anything to exert control of the peoples use of the land and its resources. I'm sure there is a "ism" there somewhere.
When in reality, I think LESS laws and rules and regulations are needed, and an opening up of the millions upon millions of acres to private citizens of land (as in the homestead acts of the past, which private citizens developed, and built this country on).
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.