Blogs - Blogs
LIEBERMAN-WARNER GLOBAL WARMING BILL LOSING MOMENTUM
November 16, 2007

Posted By Marc Morano - Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov - 11:25 AM ET  

[Note: Watch the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's new TV ad opposing the Lieberman-Warner global warming cap-and-trade bill. LINK to New 30 Second TV Ad - Also Go To Bottom of This Blog to Watch]

LIEBERMAN-WARNER GLOBAL WARMING BILL LOSING MOMENTUM

"Senators are going to be asking the American people to pay more for home energy and pay higher prices at the gas pump for no climate benefit. This bill will simply result in real economic pain, for no climate gain." - Senator James Inhofe (LINK)

Momentum Fades as Opposition Grows:  

Widely respected non-partisan Charles River Associates (CRA) issued a November 8 analysis of Lieberman-Warner global warming cap-and-trade bill (S.2191) that reveals it will cost $4-6 trillion dollars in welfare costs over 40 years and up to one trillion per-year by 2050. (LINK)

American Council for Capital Formation's (ACCF) new analysis on November 8 of the Lieberman-Warner bill finds the bill will lead "to higher energy prices, lost jobs and reduced GDP (gross domestic product)." (LINK)

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) "is not endorsing the Warner-Lieberman bill ‘because it doesn't include the nuclear issue by name,' according to his spokeswoman Melissa Shuffield. ‘We can't effectively reduce our emissions without including nuclear energy, which is more efficient than the technologies in the bill.' (Source: 10-18-07 Washington Post - LINK)

Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), the co-author of the Lieberman-Warner cap-and-trade bill, conceded on November 1 that his bill would cost "hundreds of billions of dollars." (LINK)

Democrat Presidential candidate John Edwards has also come out in strong opposition to the Lieberman-Warner bill, calling it "a massive corporate windfall" on November 1. (LINK)

Senator George Voinovich (R-OH) critiqued the Lieberman-Warner bill's proposed new Federal bureaucracy on November 8: "The very mechanisms the bill advances to contain costs seem to be more the stuff of academic theorizing than sound analysis. We have heard from no witnesses on the efficacy of the [proposed federal Carbon Market Efficiency Board] and its ability to protect the economy; veiled allusions to the Federal Reserve Board only remind us of the decades of trial and error endured before that institution regularized its procedures." (LINK)

The AFL-CIO has voiced multiple concerns with Lieberman-Warner, calling the bill "overly aggressive" in a November 5, 2007 letter. (LINK)

U.S. Chamber of Commerce said the Lieberman-Warner bill "does not adequately preserve American jobs and the domestic economy." The letter also stated: "Without participation by developing nations, the carbon constraints imposed by [Lieberman-Warner] would penalize domestic businesses attempting to compete in the world market while non-participating developing nations continue to get a free ride." [Note: Watch U.S. Chamber of Commerce's new TV ad opposing the Lieberman-Warner global warming cap-and-trade bill. LINK to New 30 Second TV Ad ]

A November 11th Washington Times editorial called Lieberman-Warner: "A misguided environmental-policy bill meandering through the Senate would slap U.S. businesses with pie-in-the-sky requirements for cutting greenhouse gases by unattainable amounts." The Times added: "The bill fails to compensate and protect consumers from rising natural gas prices and harms job security by encouraging companies to move overseas to nations with less draconian standards. In short, the bill's effects would land a crippling encroachment on U.S. power plants, factories and transportation sectors." (LINK)

An October 29th article in Politico details the fading momentum for the Lieberman-Warner bill. The article notes that the "climate bill faces wave of opposition" and is "headed for a bumpy ride" It quotes the National Religious Partnership for the Environment calling Lieberman-Warner "fundamentally flawed." (LINK)

Orange County Register editorial writer Mark Landsbaum wrote on November 6: "Reality is starting to bite to such an extent that even Democrat Presidential candidate John Edwards calls [the Lieberman-Warner] bill what it is, ‘a massive corporate windfall' for big corporations preparing to game the artificial, government-invented market for profiteering." (LINK)

# #

 

Related Links:

NEW ANALYSIS: CARBON MANDATE WOULD HARM CONSUMERS, JOBS AND ECONOMY

Boxer's Rejection of More Time for Climate Bill Rings False

CBO Warns that Cap-And-Trade Approach Could Create ‘Windfall' Profits & Harm Poor

Washington Times Editorial says Lieberman-Warner Bill equals 'pie-in-the-sky requirements for cutting greenhouse gases by unattainable amounts'

Lieberman-Warner will lead to ‘higher energy prices, lost jobs and reduced GDP'

Climate Bills Will 'Require a Wholesale Transformation of the Nation's Economy and Society'

Lieberman-Warner Climate Bill Meets Resistance from Unexpected Sources

Climate Bill Will Cost ‘Hundreds of Billions of Dollars' - Lieberman Concedes

INHOFE SLAMS NEW CAP-AND-TRADE BILL AS ALL ‘ECONOMIC PAIN FOR NO CLIMATE GAIN'

SENATOR INHOFE OPENING STATEMENT AT SUBCOMMITTEE ON GLOBAL WARMING

Senator Inhofe Exposes Costly Global Warming 'Solutions'

INHOFE, BOXER DEBATE GLOBAL WARMING ON SENATE FLOOR

Cutting Emissions May Cost U.S. Economy Up to $1.8 Trillion

Senators Propose $4500 Climate Tax on American Families

# # #

 





Majority Office
410 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg.Washington, DC 20510-6175
phone: 202-224-8832
Minority Office
456 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg.Washington, DC 20510-6175
phone: 202-224-6176