Comedic highlights of the Waxman-Markey bill hearing

by Marlo Lewis on April 23, 2009

File these vignettes among the endless list of political inanities that would be uproariously funny if the potential economic fallout were not so toxic.

Yesterday, in honor of Earth Day, House Energy & Commece Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) held an interminable hearing on global warming legislation that he and Rep. Ed Markey (D-CA) have drafted.

Ranking Member Joe Barton of Texas today issued a press release providing some comedic highlights from the proceeding. A grim green award goes to anyone who can read it without laughing.

Scenes from an Earth Day Hearing, Part II
House Energy & Commerce Committee, April 21-23

April 23, 2009

Is $8 gas good or bad? Energy Secretary: ‘Yes’

REP. CLIFF STEARNS, R-Fla.: Last September you made a statement that somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe, which at the time exceeded $8 a gallon. As Secretary of Energy, will you speak for or against any measures that would raise the price of gasoline?
SEC. CHU: As Secretary of Energy, I think especially now in today’s economic climate it would be completely unwise to want to increase the price of gasoline. And so we are looking forward to reducing the price of transportation in the American family. And this is done by encouraging fuel-efficient cars; this is done by developing alternative forms of fuel like biofuels that can lead to a separate source, an independent source of transportation fuel.
REP. STEARNS: But you can’t honestly believe that you want the American people to pay for gasoline at the prices, the level in Europe?
SEC. CHU: No, we don’t.
REP. STEARNS: No. But somehow, your statement, “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe,” doesn’t that sound a little bit silly in retrospect for you to say that?
SEC. CHU: Yes.

Huh? What was the question? Nukes? Ah…, we’ll…uh…work on it…hmmm.

REP. STEARNS: The first question I have is, this is directed to the Secretary of Energy. During your confirmation hearing, you testified that DOE has a legal obligation to safely dispose of nuclear waste. You said, “I’m supportive of the fact that the nuclear industry is and should have to be part of our energy mix in this century.” Doesn’t it concern you then that nuclear energy does not even seem to be a part of this bill? I think this is a follow-up to Mr. Upton’s question.
SEC. CHU: Well, while not specifically part of this bill, if you look at the sum package of all the bills like the American Recovery Act, nuclear energy is supported in those other bills.
REP. STEARNS: But don’t you think there should be a separate title in this bill for nuclear energy? Just yes or no.
SEC. CHU: Pardon? What was the question?
REP. STEARNS: Do you think there should be a separate title in this bill for nuclear energy? Just yes or no.
SEC. CHU: We’re looking forward to working with the committee on –
REP. STEARNS: No. Just yes or no. Do you think it should be? Can I have your yes or no answer?
SEC. CHU: A separate title in nuclear energy?
REP. STEARNS: Yes. Yes or no?
SEC. CHU: I think nuclear energy can be mentioned in this bill, but again it’s working with this committee and the administration in developing –
REP. STEARNS: Is that a “no” then? You don’t think that –
SEC. CHU: No. That was a, that was a – we will look forward to working with the committee and making sure that nuclear energy is part of our energy mix.

Green jobs go missing

REP. ED WHITFIELD, R-Ky.: I wanted to ask you all, you Mr. Chu particularly and Ms. Jackson, if you had read Gabriel Alvarez’ study – he’s at King Juan Carlos’s University in Madrid. And he used empirical data based on the government subsidizing renewable energy in Spain. And he came up with the conclusion exactly how much every job cost. And I know that President Obama in this renewable energy package is modeling using Spain as a model, one of the models. But for every job created in the renewable energy sector, so-called green job, that they lost 2.2 jobs. And this is a 50-page empirical study that he conducted. And I was just, have either one of you seen his study?
MS. JACKSON: No. I’m not familiar with his study….

We didn’t model that

REP. STEVE SCALISE, R-La.: Administrator Jackson, in your opening statement you talked about the jobs that would be created – green jobs that would be created under a cap-and-trade bill. Can you quantify how many jobs you estimate would be created under this legislation?
MS. JACKSON: I believe what I said, sir, is that this is a jobs bill and that the discussion draft bill in its entirety is aimed to jumpstart our move into the green economy.
REP. SCALISE: And I think you quoted President Obama saying that it was his opinion that he would – that this bill would create millions of jobs. I think you used the term “millions.” Is there anything that you can base your determination on how many jobs will be created?
MS. JACKSON: EPA has not done a model or any kind of modeling on jobs creation numbers.

Doomsday comes early to Ohio

REP. SCALISE: And, I mean, while you might not be a jobs expert, you’re obviously talking about, you know, and touting this bill as a jobs bill. If you would claim that it would create jobs, are you making an assumption that it won’t lose any jobs, that no jobs will be lost? Or if you don’t make that claim, how many jobs would you expect to be lost? Because groups have made very large claims. I mean, the National Association of Manufacturers claims our country would lose 3 to 4 million jobs as a result of a cap and trade energy tax.
So I just wanted to know if you or any members of the panel want to answer that question.
MS. JACKSON: I’ll go first and –
(Cross talk.)
REP. SCALISE: – if you would.
MS. JACKSON: I know that lobbyists keep playing large doomsday scenarios – quiet deaths for businesses across the country. That’s what lobbyists said about the Clean Air Act in 1990 and it didn’t happen. In fact, the U.S. economy grew 64 percent…
…REP. JOHN SHIMKUS, R-Illinois: Let me ask Administrator Jackson. Do you know how many jobs – coal miner jobs were lost in Ohio because of the Clean Air Act amendments which you were addressing earlier?
MS. JACKSON: No, sir.
REP. SHIMKUS: Thirty-five-thousand.

I know what the policy is because I saw it on the TV

EPA ADMINISTRATOR. JACKSON: The administration has no goal that is nefarious for coal. The president, on TV, in ads I see him talking about clean coal and how clean coal is crucial not only for the environment but to create jobs…

These buffooneries speak for themselves. The only comment I’d like to add is that Ms. Jackson should watch television (or Youtube) more often. Evidently, she missed these clips in which presidential candidate Obama acknowledged that his cap-and-trade plan would “necessarily” cause electricity prices to “skyrocket” and “bankrupt” anyone foolish enough to invest in new coal generation.

Bob R Geologist, Tuc April 23, 2009 at 8:39 pm

I have an uncomfortable feeling that these people, who have the power to create new laws, have no idea whatever as to the effect of their actions. Even more frightening to a scientist is the knowledge that all of this planning and expenditure of trillions of dollars to sequester a gas vital to our food supply, will have virtually no effect on world temperatures. Please, please study the history of past climates and learn the truth, not these pipe dreams trumped up by Green idiots of the Al Gore ilk.

Montague April 24, 2009 at 3:50 am

AGW is a new religion. Adherents won’t question the basic tenets of their belief.

The end of the world has been forecast time and again over the centuries. The appointed day comes and goes. Despite evidence to the contrary, believers keep on believing.

Deano April 24, 2009 at 10:06 am

We are doomed. Not due to threat from climate change, but from sheer poitical idiocy.

Michael66 April 24, 2009 at 11:20 am

There are many sources of atmospheric CO2 gas. Listed in descending order of volumn they are the following:

1. Volcanos.

2. Seismic activities on land and under the sea. As an example of this Yellowstone Park has more than 10,000 continuously active sources of CO2 and other gases.

3. Decomposition of vegetative materials both on land and in oceans, lakes, ponds and rivers.

4. Microscopic organisms in the soil and in oceans, lakes, ponds and rivers.

5. Every bird, animal and aquadic animal.

6. All the activities of mankind including breathing.

Mankind's contribution to greenhouse gas production is MINISCULE! It is a very small fraction of one per cent. To think that a reduction of the CO2 produced by the activities of mankind could have a profound effect on the climate is simply absurd.

All mankind’s production of CO2 could stop tomorrow and the world would not notice any difference at all.

Lucas May 2, 2009 at 6:56 pm

Actually, Michael66, (almost devil's number? fitting.) anthropogenic sources account for 33% of all CO2 produced. My source is an environmental TEXTBOOK (Miller, Living in the environment, Ch.17), not your silly, sourceless post. Where do you people think you get the right to spout things like that? Have you ever even heard of Roger Revelle?

Rymer66 April 26, 2009 at 3:15 pm

It's the powers that be take on God and HIS plan for the world.

I agree, we believers keep on believing.

God is still on His Throne. Amen. Al Gore notwithstanding.

The bigger they are the Hotter they fall.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: