Politics

Menendez Amendment Threatens State Department Bill

On May 7, the House International Relations Committee approved an amendment to the State Department reauthorization bill that says the United States should “demonstrate international leadership” in climate change issues. The resolution, added to H.R. 1950 during a markup session and proposed by Rep. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), contains language similar to that added to the Senate version of the bill by the Foreign Relations Committee Chairman on April 9.

The amendment was approved by the committee by 21 votes to 18, with Republicans Jim Leach (Iowa) and Chris Smith (N.J.) voting in favor alongside 19 committee Democrats (two Democrats missed the vote). Six Republican members of the committee were not present for the vote. They were: Elton Gallegly (Calif.), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.), Amory Houghton (N.Y.), Nick Smith (Mich.), Jo Ann Davis (Va.) and Katherine Harris (Fla.).

The amendment commits Congress to agreeing that “manmade greenhouse gases are contributing to global climate change” and accepts the conclusion of the IPCC that “most of the warming observed over the past 50 years is attributable to human activities.” Menendezs amendment also expresses concern over rising sea levels, changes in crop yields, and the spread of tropical infectious diseases.

Although Rep. Menendez said that he was “not here to advocate the Kyoto Protocol,” the amendment advocates Kyoto-style energy rationing mechanisms and urges the United States to rejoin the Kyoto negotiations in order to negotiate a second protocol.

The committee passed a similar amendment proposed by Rep. Menendez during the last Congress. It was removed during the conference stage owing to the efforts of then-House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas). Fears that the House leadership might not send the bill to the floor if it contains the language were reflected by Committee Chairman Henry Hyde (R-Ill.), who said that he felt the amendment was unnecessary, given the administrations commitment to spend $1.7 billion on climate research this year.

The committee voted for the amendment despite a strong effort mounted by opponents. A joint letter criticizing the amendment was sent to the committee members by 33 non-profit groups. Signers included 12 members of the Cooler Heads Coalition: Competitive Enterprise Institute, Americans for Tax Reform, Citizens for a Sound Economy, Frontiers of Freedom, American Legislative Exchange Council, 60 Plus Association, National Center for Public Policy Research, Center for Security Policy, Small Business Survival Committee, American Policy Center, Heartland Institute, and Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow.

Another joint letter from trade associations was organized by the National Association of Manufacturers. A detailed and exhaustively footnoted refutation of the amendments was produced and circulated by the Center for Science and Public Policy and CEI. (Greenwire, May 8, 2003)

As the Senate begins debate on the energy bill, S. 14, a coalition of nine energy companies is supporting a bipartisan plan to reduce air emissions from electric utilities in preference to the competing Clear Skies plan supported by the Bush administration.

The Clean Energy Group (CEG), consisting of Conectiv, Consolidated Edison, Entergy Corp., Exelon Corp., KeySpan, PG&E National Energy Group, Public Service Enterprise Group Inc., and Sempra Energy, dissents from the Bush administration’s suggestion that mandating carbon dioxide (CO2) controls from power plants is too costly and will wreak economic havoc.

CEG argues that the Clean Air Planning Act (CAPA), introduced by Sens. Tom Carper (D-DE) and Judd Gregg (R-NH), reduces pollution far more than the administration’s Clear Skies legislation, including CO2 reductions omitted by Clear Skies, at only slightly greater cost $66.7 billion as against $65.4 billion over twenty years from 2005 to 2025. The Carper-Gregg Bill presents tougher standards and shorter timetables than Clear Skies. The EPA is preparing its own comparison of Clear Skies and the Carper bill, following Carpers request for an agency comparison at an April 8 Senate committee hearing.

The group also argues that the even stricter bill introduced by Sen. James Jeffords (I-Vt.) with the support of environmental groups is far more costly than the Carper bill. A 2001 EPA analysis of an earlier Jeffords proposal to reach those same emission targets by 2007 concluded that overall costs would be between $13 billion and $30 billion annually.

Some voices in the Senate suggest the CEG analysis is tainted as the group includes members of the nuclear industry. The Carper bill would allow the nuclear industry to sell emission credits to coal-powered utilities at a profit, because the industry does not emit CO2. One lobbyist backing the Clear Skies plan says the Carper plan would provide “free money” to the nuclear industry.

House Committee Will Take Up Sense of Congress Language on Climate

The House International Relations Committee is scheduled to take up the State Department Authorization bill (which has not yet been given a number) on May 7. Committee staff expect that Rep. Robert Menendez (D-N. J.) will offer sense of Congress on climate change language similar to that voted out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 9.

Last year, a similar amendment offered by Menendez was approved on a 23-20 vote. Republican Representative Chris Smith of New Jersey joined committee Democrats in voting for the amendment. Four Republicans missed the vote. The amendment was dropped in the House-Senate conference report on the bill.

This year, Menendezs amendment faces a more organized opposition. Chairman Henry Hydes (R-Ill.) committee staff are canvassing Republican members. The House majority leadership are united in opposing the amendment. A joint letter opposing the amendment from several trade associations led by the National Association of Manufacturers has been sent to committee members. Another joint letter from non-profit groups is being circulated by the Competitive Enterprise Institute for signatures.

The Senate has scheduled consideration of its State Department authorization bill, S. 925, for May 6. It is not known whether there will be an attempt to strip or replace the climate language. Among other things, the climate section calls on the administration to negotiate a new international treaty with binding commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For a more complete account of the Senate version, see the April 16 issue.

The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee completed work on comprehensive energy legislation on April 30 and sent the bill to the floor. The bill, S. 14, does not contain any climate policy provisions. Senator Jeff Bingamans (R-N.M.) amendment to add a renewable portfolio standard for electric utilities was also defeated.

The Senate could begin floor debate on the bill as early as next week, although it is expected that there will be several weeks of intermittent debate before a final vote. Numerous amendments on climate policy may be offered. These include Titles 10, 11, and 13 from last years Senate energy bill; the McCain-Lieberman bill to cap greenhouse gas emissions, S. 139; and Senator Tom Carpers (D-Del.) Clean Air Planning Act, S. 843.

The White House Office on Science and Technology Policy on April 21 denied a petition to have the National Assessment on Climate Change corrected to comply with the Federal Data Quality Act.

OSTP legal counsel, in replying to the petition filed by Christopher C. Horner on behalf of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, claims that the National Assessment was produced by a federal advisory committee and is therefore exempted by the Federal Advisory Committee Act from meeting the Data Quality Acts requirements.

“Only a few problems stand between this claim and reality,” Horner commented.

“First, the statute authorizing the National Assessment expressly states that it will be produced by OSTP. Second, the National Assessments text acknowledges that it was produced by OSTP. Third, on numerous occasions the federal advisory committee charged with assisting OSTP acknowledges that the National Assessment itself will be a product of OSTP,” Horner continued.

“Furthermore, neither OSTPs guidelines nor the White House Office of Management and Budgets FDQA guidelines provide any exemption for FACA products,” said Horner, who is preparing an appeal on behalf of CEI.

The petition and the White Houses denial may be found at www.cei.org.

Climate Title Stripped from Senate Energy Bill

Senator Pete Domenici (R-N.M.), chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, decided to drop his draft climate title when it came time to mark it up on April 10. He noted during the committee meeting that he had discovered that no consensus existed among members of the committee on what climate policies should be included in his comprehensive energy legislation. However, he pledged to work toward a constructive compromise before the bill reached the Senate floor.

The draft climate title, which was released for comment on March 26, aroused opposition from several committee Republicans and from conservative and free market public interest groups. Title XI would have created a White House Office of Climate Policy and climate czar, required the executive branch to produce a national strategy that “will stabilize and ultimately reduce net U. S. emissions of greenhouse gases” plus annual progress reports; and created a system to award credits for voluntary actions to cut emissions.

A joint letter criticizing the climate title was sent to Chairman Domenici on April 4. It was signed by leaders of 21 non-profit groups, including the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Coalitions for America, Americans for Tax Reform, 60 Plus Association, American Conservative Union, National Taxpayers Union, Christian Coalition, National Center for Public Policy Research, Small Business Survival Committee, American Policy Center, and Frontiers of Freedom. The letter states that the climate title would “in our view create the institutional and legal framework and the political incentives necessary eventually to force Kyoto-style energy rationing on the American people.” The text may be found online at http://www.cei.org/gencon/003,03434.cfm.

On April 9, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed by voice vote a sense of the Senate resolution on climate change as part of the State Department re-authorization legislation. Senator Joe Bidens (D-Del.) amendment includes a finding that there is growing evidence that “increases in atmospheric concentrations of man-made greenhouse gases are contributing to global climate change.” The resolution enumerates several other irrelevant and false findings before stating that the U.S. should reduce the risks of climate change by:

(1) “taking responsible action to ensure significant and meaningful reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases from all sectors;

(2) “creating flexible international and domestic mechanisms, including joint implementation, technology deployment, tradable credits for emissions reductions and carbon sequestration projects that will reduce, avoid, and sequester greenhouse gas emissions; and

(3) “participating in international negotiations, including putting forth a proposal to the Conference of the Parties, with the objective of securing United States participation in a future binding climate change Treaty in a manner that is consistent with the environmental objectives of the UNFCCC, that protects the economic interests of the United States, and recognizes the shared international responsibility for addressing climate change, including developing country participation.”

On April 11, the House of Representative passed an omnibus energy bill by a vote of 247-175. The bill would open the Alaska National Wildlife Refuges coastal plain to oil and gas exploration. It also contains numerous subsidies and incentives for conventional and renewable energy production.

Amendments to remove the ANWR provision, electricity restructuring, and oil and natural gas royalty relief were defeated, as was an amendment that would have required automobile manufacturers to raise the Corporate Average Fuel Economy of their fleets to 30 miles per gallon by 2010. A provision that would have allowed the Department of the Interior to make a complete inventory of the nations offshore oil and natural gas supplies was stripped from the bill. (Greenwire, April 14, 2003).

Global warming skepticism seems to be increasing in Russia as that country wrestles with the decision of whether to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Russia has become the lynchpin in the Kyoto debate. Failure to ratify on Russias part would prevent the treaty from coming into legal force.

The Moscow newspaper, Pravda, recently published a strongly worded article, entitled “Kyoto Protocol Is Not Worth a Thing,” which questioned the wisdom of ratification. Another Russian newspaper, Nezavisimaya Gazeta, published an article written by two Russian climate scientists, Sergey Dobrovolsky and Vyacheslav Naydenov, entitled “The Warming That Never Existed.”

The Pravda article highlighted the words of an ecologist who questioned global warming science. “This trouble is coming from the Russian Arkhangelsk region,” according to Pravda. “This region is celebrated for its implementation of the Kyoto protocol. There was a briefing held there recently to discuss climate questions. Young ecologist Alexander Shalarev dared to say [what] Moscow scientists are afraid to say. He declared that there was actually no [manmade] greenhouse effect at all. Shalarev added that the Kyoto protocol was simply a far-fetched idea, a political action that was meant to show the care for the climate of the Earth.”

Pravda also noted that Shalarev believes that the Kyoto protocol was signed without adequate scientific analysis and in order to satisfy the political goals of a Democratic administration (as it was back in those days). He said that the Clinton administration loved grand ecological schemes with the maximum federal involvement. When a Republican administration was elected, the U.S. backed away from the Kyoto protocol.

The majority staff of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on March 26 released comprehensive energy legislation in draft form. The bill includes significant global warming policy proposals in Title XI. The climate change title would create a White House Office of Climate Policy and climate czar, require the executive branch to produce a national strategy that “will stabilize and ultimately reduce net U. S. emissions of greenhouse gases” plus annual progress reports; and create a system administered by the Department of Energy to award credits for voluntary actions to cut emissions.

After taking comments through April 4, the committee staff plans to produce a “chairmans mark” for release on April 8. This would allow Chairman Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) to mark up the bill in committee on April 10. It is unlikely that action on the entire bill will be completed before the Easter recess, but sources told Cooler Heads that the chairman wanted to complete work on the climate title on the 10^th.

The language in the climate provisions is mostly taken from Republican-sponsored amendments to the energy bill put together in the last Congress by then-Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S. D.), which was brought to the floor without being considered by the Energy Committee. Most of those amendments were offered in an attempt to water down what were considered by their sponsors to be the most objectionable parts of Daschles bill.

The energy bill overall is much more pro-energy than last years Daschle bill. It contains provisions that would allow greater access to Americas energy resources and promote development of the nations energy infrastructure. It also jettisons several provisions that would limit energy supplies and raise prices, such as the Renewable Portfolio Standard for electric utilities.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute immediately came out against the climate title. A joint letter to Chairman Domenici was being circulated for signing by other non-profit groups. It states that the climate title would “in our view create the institutional and legal framework and the political incentives necessary eventually to force Kyoto-style energy rationing on the American people.” The letter will be posted at www.cei.org.

“The climate title looks more like a Kerry or Lieberman campaign document than something produced by a Republican committee staff. If this title is enacted, we wont need the rest of the energy bill,” said Myron Ebell, director of global warming policy at CEI (and editor of Cooler Heads).

Although committee staff initially spread the word that the Administration supported the climate title, Administration sources denied that they supported it or had been involved in its drafting. In fact, legislating a White House climate czar and office would undo the Bush Administrations decision in 2001 to abolish that Clinton-created office and position.

Court Orders EPA to Hand Over Climate Change Documents

The Environmental Protection Agency has been ordered by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to produce “climate change” documents requested under the Freedom of Information Act by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), or to justify their withholding. CEI, a non-profit free market advocacy group, requested the documents to determine whether or not the agency was engaging in activities to implement the Kyoto Protocol “through the backdoor” in opposition to congressional prohibition.

“Now we can finally begin assessing how far the agency has gone toward backdoor implementation of the Kyoto Protocol,” said Christopher C. Horner, CEI Counsel who filed the lawsuit.  “We also remain fascinated by a point of which the Court took particular note:  How does EPA explain their shift in alarmism from the global cooling scare of years past to the current emphasis on catastrophic global warming?”

The documents that the EPA has been ordered to hand over are expected to show that the agency has violated the “Knollenberg Provision,” originally sponsored by Rep. Joe Knollenberg (R-MI). The provision prohibits the federal government from spending money to implement the Kyoto Protocol, which has not been ratified by the U.S. Senate.

“By this Order, the D.C. District Court joins CEIs puzzlement over the Administrations refusal to turn over documents on the basis that their release may potentially harm U.S. interests in ongoing Kyoto negotiations,” said Horner.  “And it adds to the mounting public embarrassments over the refusal by various officials to execute the Presidents rejection of Kyoto, instead continuing to try to cut a deal for a treaty the President assured the public he rejected in Americas interest.”

State Attorneys General from several states have filed notice on two separate occasions this year of their intent to sue the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for failing to regulate carbon dioxide. The first notice came on January 30, informing EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman that the Attorneys General of Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Maine planned to sue under Section 108 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), which they claim obligates Whitman to list CO₂ as a pollutant that endangers public health and safety.

The second notice came on February 20 when the three AGs, joined by four others representing New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Washington, informed Whitman of intent to sue unless she promulgates New Source Review Performance Standards for power plant emissions of CO₂ under section 111 of the CAA.

In a critique of the two letters, Marlo Lewis, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, accuses the AGs of engaging in “mere word play” and a “sophomoric attempt to turn statutory construction into a game of gotcha.”

The question, argues Lewis, is “Did Congress delegate to EPA the power to regulate CO₂? When Congress enacted and amended the CAA, did it intend for EPA to set up a mandatory greenhouse gas control program?” The answer is clearly no, according to Lewis. As he has noted elsewhere and repeats in the current critique, CO₂ is not mentioned in any CAA regulatory provisions and only once in a non-regulatory provision. The clincher, however, is the statement within the non-regulatory provision that, “Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to authorize the imposition on any person of air pollution control requirements.”

Moreover, the AGs want the EPA to declare CO₂ a pollutant under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) program. But NAAQS is a program that deals with “place-specific air quality programs,” which “measures local pollution levels against national air quality standards and seeks to remedy local problems via state implementation plans.”

It doesnt make any sense to attempt to regulate CO₂ under the NAAQS provision because regardless of where the CO₂ is emitted, it has the same potential impact on the climate. “If EPA set NAAQS for CO₂ above current atmospheric levels, the entire country would be in attainment, even if U.S. consumption of hydrocarbon fuels suddenly doubled,” says Lewis. “Conversely, if EPA set a NAAQS for CO₂ below current levels, the entire country would be out of attainment, even if all power plants, factories, and automobiles shut down.”

The second notice of intent to sue is a new innovation in the AGs attempt to force the EPA to regulate CO2. This one seeks to force Administrator Whitman to set New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for CO₂ emission from electric generating units. NSPS requires different categories of stationary sources to meet certain performances. Lewis points out that the NSPS program was enacted in 1970, “years before global warming was even a gleam in Al Gores eye.” Nor did Congress instruct the EPA to address global warming in the NSPS program when it amended the CAA in 1977 and 1990.

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) introduced legislation to amend the NSPS to cap CO₂ from power plants in the 105^th, 106^th, and 107^th Congresses. Each time the bill attracted zero co-sponsors. Its absurd, says Lewis, to argue that Congress implicitly empowered EPA to cap CO₂ in 1970 given Leahys efforts to provide that authority and Congresss flat rejection of those efforts. “The phrase laughed out of court was invented for just such inanities.” Lewis makes several other cogent and damning critiques of the AGs arguments.

He concludes by challenging EPA Administrator Whitman to show leadership in the face of these attacks. These notices are designed to force her to choose between the Presidents opposition to CO₂ regulation and the career bureaucrats who want to increase their power over the U.S. economy, says Lewis. “Whitman must decide where her loyalties lie with the rule of law, economic growth, and affordable energy, or with the rule of bureaucrats, regulatory excess, and Kyoto-style energy rationing.” The critique, The Anti-Energy Litigation Of The State Attorneys General: From Junk Science To Junk Law, is available at www.cei.org.

Maine Bill Would Prevent Kyoto Implementation

In an attempt to thwart Kyoto-style legislation and Kyoto-related activities in Maine, a bill has been introduced in the state legislature that would prohibit the State from spending any money to implement international treaties that have not been ratified by the U.S. Senate.

The bill may be the beginning of a backlash against efforts in New England to carry out Kyoto-style policies and to pressure the Bush Administration to do likewise. In 2001, for example, the governors of all six New England States signed an agreement with the Eastern Canadian provinces to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2010 and to 10 percent below 1990 levels by 2020.

Also, State Attorney General Steven Rowe is one of several attorneys general who have threatened to sue the Bush Administration for failing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to prevent global warming. Maine lawmakers have also sought to introduce legislation to restrict greenhouse gas emissions.

The bill, introduced by Rep. Henry Joy (R-Crystal), reads in part, “A state department or agency may not expend or award funds to implement, in whole or in part, an international treaty that the United States Senate has not ratified.” The bill explains that “to implement” is any “means to take any action that has a demonstrable and direct connection to specific requirements of any international treaty that has not been ratified by the United States Senate.”

On Wednesday, Rep. Joy testified that Kyoto “really doesnt have anything to do with conservation. Its really about command and control where you live, how you live and in some cases, if you do live.” Joy introduced the bill on behalf of Jon Reisman, an economics professor at the University of Maine at Machias, who has worked to prevent such efforts.

“Such unfounded allegations and doubts would make victims of the oil and gas sector and may result in a recession in world demand, thus harming the interests of producers,” says the so-called Abu Dhabi declaration. The signatories “reaffirmed the necessity of a continuous and unobstructed supply of oil and gas to international markets.”

The signatories also argued that if the world presses ahead with restrictions on energy use, then the Arab states should be compensated for the loss in oil and gas revenues that would result (The Independent, February 9, 2003).

The tax code requires that such vehicles be used at least 50 percent of the time in business activities to be eligible for the write off. The Sierra Club claims that individuals are taking advantage of the tax credit to purchase luxury SUVs for personal use. The Sierra Club has also attacked President Bush for his budget plan proposal that would increase the deduction from $25,000 to $75,000 (lists.sierraclub.org).

SUVs may get a reprieve from those trying to get them banned, however. The massive snow storm on the east coast saw SUV owners contribute invaluable, life-saving services. An article in the Baltimore Sun (February 18, 2003) begins, “A half-dozen shiny big SUVs were lined up outside St. Joseph Medical Center yesterday morning, their volunteer drivers proving to the world that they are nothing like the arrogant, self-centered, fuel-squandering ignoramuses of stereotype.”

Up and down the east coast, volunteer SUV drivers turned out in droves to help taxi essential hospital personnel, such as nurses and doctors to and from hospitals. Without those volunteers and their SUVs, important emergency personnel would have been stranded without a way to work.

“You hear it on the news – all about the gas-guzzling hogs driving SUVs,” said Jeff Hegberg, climbing back into his $40,000, 7,200-pound, black 2002 Chevrolet Suburban. “Well, on a day like this, what would the hospitals do without us?”