Greenpeace Joins Growing Opposition to Pelosi's National Energy Tax

In a press release issued today, Greenpeace, has joined a growing list of concerned parties in opposing Pelosi’s National Energy Tax – The Waxman-Markey Climate Bill.

Updated pic from our friend Caleb Howe

Greenpeace joins Friends of the Earth, a coalition of 186 national and state leaders who oppose Waxman-Markey Cap-and-Trade (Tax) Bill, and The Congressional Black Caucus who are voicing concerns over a study released two days ago showing an overwhelming majority of African Americans are opposed to the Waxman-Markey energy bill based on the potential impact on the economy and minority households.

Press release issued by Greenpeace June 25, 2009

Greenpeace Opposes Waxman-Markey
Climate Bill not Science-Based; Benefits Polluters

Washington, D.C., United States — In advance of tomorrow’s vote on the American Clean Energy and Security Act in the House of Representatives, Greenpeace USA Deputy Campaigns Director Carroll Muffett issued the following statement:

“Since the Waxman-Markey bill left the Energy and Commerce committee, yet another fleet of industry lobbysists has weakened the bill even more, and further widened the gap between what Waxman-Markey does and what science demands. As a result, Greenpeace opposes this bill in its current form. We are calling upon Congress to vote against this bill unless substantial measures are taken to strengthen it. Despite President Obama’s assurance that he would enact strong, science-based legislation, we are now watching him put his full support behind a bill that chooses politics over science, elevates industry interests over national interest, and shows the significant limitations of what this Congress believes is possible.

Although Greenpeace opposes this bill for differing reasons, it’s the opposition that counts here, and not the motives in this case.

Here’s an interview conducted by Scott Harris “Between The Lines” with Damon Moglen, Greenpeace Global Warming Campaign director, who explains why his group can’t support the Waxman-Markey climate legislation.

The U.S. Camber of Commerce has also sent a letter to the House of Representatives opposing The Waxman-Markey Bill and released this graphic illustrating the bills 397 regulations and 1060 mandates!


The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world’s largest business federation representing more than three million businesses and organizations of every size, sector, and region, urges you to oppose H.R. 2454, the “American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009.”

As noted in correspondence earlier in the week, the Chamber strongly supports comprehensive legislation to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases while providing for a strong American economy. The Chamber also supports negotiation of a global accord to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases as the best approach to tackling this global issue.

The Chamber believes that domestic legislation should: (1) balance environmental objectives with the need for economic growth and job creation; (2) promote technology development and deployment; (3) reduce barriers to the development of climate-friendly energy sources; (4) promote energy efficiency; and (5) implement appropriate steps to address the international nature of global emissions. Although H.R. 2454 has changed since the bill was reported from the Energy and Commerce Committee, this legislation still suffers from an overwhelming number of flaws, which were described in detail in earlier correspondence.

Fundamentally, the bill fails to ensure that an adequate amount of renewable or alternative energy sources are developed and deployed to compensate for the bill’s declining cap on fossil fuel emissions. Instead, it would impose 397 new regulations and 1060 new mandates on the American public; a chart of this regulatory morass can be viewed at http://www.uschamber.com/media/pdfs/waxmanmarkey.pdf.

Moreover, H.R. 2454 is not conditional on an international treaty that sets binding commitments for all major emitters—developed and developing—while ensuring that every nation retains the flexibility to attain those commitments however it chooses.

The Chamber urges the House to reject H.R. 2454 and to craft legislation that ensures that cost-effective and reliable renewable and alternative energy sources are developed and deployed to smooth a transition to a low-carbon energy future, including sources like nuclear, clean coal, and other emerging energy technologies. The House should also address the significant regulatory, legal, economic, technical, scientific, and environmental concerns that the Chamber has repeatedly argued need to be part of any comprehensive climate change legislation.

The Chamber strongly urges you to oppose H.R. 2454. The Chamber may consider votes on, or in relation to, this issue in our annual How They Voted scorecard.


R. Bruce Josten

The Club for Growth issues 15 reasons to oppose the climate bill.

National Energy Tax: This is a tax that will affect constituents in every aspect of their lives. From transportation, to food, to electricity, to income – this is the ultimate regressive consumption tax to the tune of nearly $3,000 per year according to the Heritage Foundation. The costs per family for the whole energy tax aggregated from 2012 to 2035 are estimated to be $71,493.

Exacerbates the Economic Crisis: Studies from numerous independent research groups, including MIT, the Heritage Foundation, and CRA International, all agree that implementing a massive cap and tax scheme will cost millions of jobs, reduce earnings for the average U.S. worker, and devastate GDP.

Massive Job Losses: According to the Heritage Foundation, employment will be lower by 1,105,000 jobs per year. In some years, the national energy tax will reduce employment by nearly 2.5 million jobs.

Winners & Losers: The bill transfers wealth from rural areas to cities. States like California, Washington, and New Jersey would receive more emission credits than they need, enabling them to sell surplus credits to smaller facilities in states like Ohio that receive maybe half of the credits they need – making the rich, richer, and the poor, poorer.

Little Environmental Impact: The bill will cost consumers trillions of dollars, while reducing, by a very small amount the carbon dioxide that is contained in our atmosphere. World-wide emission reductions would be negligible without the full participation of all nations. Additionally, just because the government requires a certain decrease in emissions within a certain timeframe, does not mean such decreases can occur in that time period.

Green Jobs Are a Proven Failure: According to a recent study (PDF) that reviewed the impact of “green jobs” in Spain, the U.S. can expect 2.2 jobs to be destroyed for every 1 renewable job financed by the government. Only 1 in 10 of the jobs actually created through green investment is permanent, and since 2000, Spain has spent 753,778 U.S dollars to create each “green job,” including subsidies of more than $1,319,783 per wind industry job.

Free Money to Select Corporate Titans: Government-run “cap and trade” is, by definition, a central economic planning scheme in which the government decides which industries and companies deserve more or fewer credits and what business factors and economic outputs are “necessary.” Small business and rural interests never had a seat at the table when discussions occurred on how to craft H.R. 2454.

Creates a Derivatives Market for Companies like AIG: Companies like AIG and ENRON will be participating in a new derivatives market that is much more volatile than housing or natural gas. This new unregulated derivates market will be more perilous for companies like these than the traditional ones that got them into trouble in the first place. In addition, since the created artificial market contains no transparency, it is more likely to attract traders intent on imposing Ponzi schemes in the same spirit of Bernie Madoff and swindle thousands of Americans.

Devastates Rural America: According to the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, the monthly residential electricity bills in 25 states will increase 15 to 28 percent for every $20/ton of carbon dioxide allowances. Rural households spend 58% more on fuel than urban residents as a percentage of their income. The Heritage foundation estimates farm income will drop by $50 billion by 2035.

Concedes to the Competition: Currently, China accounts for 85% of global growth in coal each year and is the world’s largest annual emitter of greenhouse gases. China’s energy usage rose by 7.2% last year and they are building approximately two coal fired power plants per week to keep up with demand. Recently, at a U.N. conference, the Chinese government’s advisory panel on climate change asserted that the cap and tax targets were too low by stating Given that, it is natural for China to have some increase in its emissions, so it is not possible for China in that context to accept a binding or compulsory target. In addition, India will not agree to any cap on their total energy production, and many believe India will double their coal-fired-capacity by 2030.

Discriminates Against Developing Nations: The bill creates a new program under USAID to provide U.S. foreign aid to developing countries for their efforts to adapt to climate change. Essentially, the bill is sending taxpayer funds to encourage third world nations to not develop carbon emitting energy sources – keeping them at a competitive disadvantage from developed nations for even more decades to come.

Establishes an Unrealistic Renewable Energy Standard (RES): “Cap and tax” does not take into account the fact that additional hydropower, nuclear and advanced fossil coal power plants cannot be deployed quickly enough to meet expected growth in electricity demand while also dramatically reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Since renewable technology accounts for a small percentage of energy demand, consumers can expect not only higher rates, but more transmission problems during peak hours of demand. Additionally, the bill preempts at least 23 state renewable electricity standards.

Davis-Bacon: “Cap and tax” expands Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirements to many provisions of the bill. This policy ahs been shown to increase public construction costs by anywhere from 5 to 38 percent above projected costs for the same project in the private sector.

Bloated Bureaucracy: The bill establishes a myriad of new federal agencies intertwined between at least 21established agencies with the mission of reallocating trillions of taxpayer dollars in a supposedly fair and efficient manor. According the U.S Chamber of Commerce (PDF), the bill will impose 397 new federal regulations that require traditional agency rulemakings.

Countless Federal Mandates: The bill imposes over a thousand mandates and even mandates efficiency requirements on electric appliances like Jacuzzis.

Others blogging

From Karl @ Patterico The more things Hopeandchange…

From Robert Stacy McCain says: The Monstrosity From Hell That Will Destroy the American Economy