5/18/10

Kerry-LiebermanLikened to Mr. Potato Head – Cosmetic Features Can Be Rearranged, Butthe Concept Remains Wholly Intact (“Risk” and “Operation” Come to MindToo). Wall Street Journal(5/18) editorializes, “Despite the most creative rhetoric this side ofObamaCare, voters have figured out that "cap and trade" involvesartificial carbon rationing and vast new energy taxes. So the main goalof John Kerry and Joe Lieberman has been attempting to disguise thesetruths in the climate bill they released to much fanfare last week. Thebill was nine months in gestation once it became clear that the versionthe House passed last summer—which one of five Democrats opposed—wasdoomed in the Senate. Yet no one should mistake Kerry-Lieberman for anew approach. Jim Lucier, an investment analyst at Capital AlphaPartners, calls it the Mr. Potato Head bill. The cosmetic features canbe rearranged, but it’s still a Mr. Potato Head. This is still cap andtax—except with new and larger subsidies, outright corporate bribes,and the rest of the political palm-greasing that Democrats hope canstill lead to a Rose Garden ceremony this year. The bill sets a 2020target for reducing CO2 emissions by 17% from 2005 levels, and 83% by2050, the same as the House. Of course, please don’t say this hasanything to do with global warming. "We don’t want to mix messageshere," Senator Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) said on Earth Day. "I’m allfor protecting the Earth, but this is about energy independence."

Scrantonicity: PA’sJunior Senator Finds Himself Eyebrow Deep in Complicated Stuff Again;This Time? Wants Senate Vote on His Ridiculous “Tailoring” Amendment. E&E News(5/18) reports, “Two Senate Democrats are considering an alternative toSenate efforts to stymie the Obama administration’s climate regulations. With two bills to block or limit U.S. EPA’sclimate rules pending, Sens. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) and Tom Carper (D-Del.)are discussing a measure that would seek to exempt small stationarysources from greenhouse gas regulations while allowing the agency toregulate larger emitters, according to a Senate aide familiar with theproposal. "I think it would be very helpful for folks who represent astate like mine as well as others to have an alternative available,"Casey said yesterday. Casey declined to say what such a measure couldentail. "I don’t want to characterize it, because a quickcharacterization would not do justice to what the nature of theamendment will be if we have to use it," he said. The proposal is "very similar" to EPA’s "tailoring" rule forgreenhouse gases, the aide said. EPA last week finalized a rule thatseeks to phase in permitting requirements beginning with the largeststationary sources.

“Kings of the World”:Federal Agency Charged with Overseeing Offshore Minerals Flatly Refusesto Comply with Request to Send Representative to Senate for Hearing. The Hill(5/17) reports, “The federal agency that regulates offshore oildrilling declined to send a witness to the Senate Homeland Security andGovernmental Affairs Committee’s hearing Monday on the federal responseto the massive Gulf of Mexico oil spill, Committee Chairman JoeLieberman (I-Conn.) said. The committee had requested the appearance ofa top official from the Interior Department’s Minerals ManagementService. Lieberman’s panel is probing the adequacy of BP’s federallyapproved oil drilling and spill response plans. “I regret that the MMSleadership has chosen not to appear before our committee today becausethey really need to be asked the same questions I am going to askHomeland Security, the Coast Guard and BP,” Lieberman said Mondayafternoon as the hearing commenced. Lieberman opened the hearing withan attack on federal oversight of offshore drilling. He faulted MMS forapproving inadequate BP plans. “Did our government, through MMS,require an oil spill response plan adequate to the widest range ofpossible dangers, including the failure of a blowout preventer?,”Lieberman said, referring to a failure of device that is supposed tocut off damaged wells. “It sure appears that they did not.”

Fmr. Illinois Rep.Pops the Balloon of Complacency on LCFS – Just Because It’s Not inKerry-Lieberman Doesn’t Mean It Won’t Be on Your Doorstep By Christmas. Fmr. U.S. Rep. Thomas Corcoran (R-Ill.) writes (5/18) for the Daily Caller,“While they may not know it yet, the decision to leave the LCFS on thecutting room floor is a rare spot of good news for a broke and brokenAmerican public. After all, ever since the governor of Californiasigned an executive order in 2007 setting his state down the LCFS path,those of us who have seen this movie before began to brace for theinevitable national standard from Washington—part of theless-than-implicit pact we have with the world’s eighth largest economyto bail it out anytime it bites off a mandate too big for it to chew.But given a second glance at the legislative movement taking placethroughout the country, perhaps we’ve been duped. True, it’s unlikelythat an LCFS will be resurrected as part of the Kerry-Lieberman bill.But that doesn’t mean it’s prepared to stay in the grave forever. Rightnow, in more than 20 states across the country, efforts are under wayto copy the California model and paste it into statute—with or withoutthe consent of the legislature. And while you may think you’d be safeif you happen to live in one of the remaining 30 states, it’s time tothink again.

Group thatSpecializes in Telling Investors Not to Invest In Profitable EnergyProjects Affixes Its Target on Canada’s Oil Sands; So We Just Bought 10More Shares This AM. ClimateWire(5/18, subs. req’d) reports, “A supporter of Albertan oil development,Michael Whatley of the Consumer Energy Alliance, disputed thesuggestion that demand from the United States would drop for oil sandsfuels amid climate regulations in the United States. Even if oil pricessurge above $120 a barrel, there is not an immediate replacement forthe Canadian fuel, he said. "If we take a major part of our consumptionoff the table, where are we going to get it from?" he said. "It’s notgoing to come from Mexico." Canada currently is the United States’largest importer of crude oil. The Ceres report provides a strongerargument against the adoption of low-carbon fuel standards than it doesagainst cutting oil sands development, Whatley said. Wind and solarpower fueling the electric grid for widespread use of alternativevehicles could take decades, he said. Companies already have reducedthe carbon footprint per barrel of tar sands oil by more than 30percent since 1990, and are researching ways to cut it even more, hesaid. At an event at the Canadian Embassy in May, a representative fromthe U.S. State Department said that an oil supply from a stable,democratic ally enhances "global security today and into the future".In the meantime, many proposals for low-carbon fuel standards in U.Sstates are "stalled," one source said. Wisconsin, for example, strippedthe idea out of a bill that failed in its legislature this year.

Opposition Continuesto Build in AK Over Plan by Folks Who Have Never Been to the State toLock Up Millions of Acres – Let’s Just Call It “Wilderness”! — onNorth Slope. Paul Jenkins writes (5/15) in the Anchorage Daily News,“Here’s a lousy idea: Let’s lock up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge’s1.5 million-acre coastal plain as a wilderness so the evil oil industrycan never search for the estimated 11 billion barrels of recoverableoil believed pooled there. After all, the Energy InformationAdministration says this nation only imports 9.7 million barrels ofcrude oil a day, up more than a half-million barrels daily over thesame period last year. About 5.9 million barrels come from our goodfriends at OPEC. With all that, who really needs to find and producenew oil? That’s easy. We do. At a Tuesday night hearing in Anchorage,39 people spoke against a wilderness designation, 26 in favor. There isgrowing opposition to the idea across Alaska, where ANWR developmentgenerally is supported — and where there already are more than 58million acres of designated wilderness and more than 190 millionprotected acres. Gov. Sean Parnell and Sens. Lisa Murkowski and MarkBegich already are on record against such a designation for the coastalplain. ANWR’s coastal plain is just a tiny dot on Alaska’s topographical face, butit stirs strong emotions. It is either our best shot at another oiljackpot or a pristine, sensitive American Serengeti.

How Dead IsCap-and-Raid? So Dead, That Even the Furthest-to-the-Left Candidate forU.S. Senate in KY Can’t Tell People Fast Enough that He Opposes It. Lt. Gov. and U.S. Senate candidate Don Mongiardo writes (5/16) in the Lexington Herald-Leader,“The fundamental question for Democratic Primary voters is: Who’s onyour side? As attorney general, Jack Conway collected over $70,000 incampaign cash from utility companies while his office negotiatedmillions in rate hikes. Conway has pocketed $106,000 from Wall Streetinsiders, including Goldman Sachs. I have stood up for Kentuckyratepayers and challenged Conway on his unethical conduct and proposedthe toughest Wall Street reforms of any candidate. Since expressingsupport for Henry Waxman’s cap-and-trade bill last year, nationalDemocrats have pumped over $500,000 into Conway’s campaign coffers. In contrast, I strongly oppose cap and trade. It will devastate Kentucky’s economy and increase electric rates.If you’re looking for another lawyer-politician who’s more comfortableschmoozing with Washington lobbyists than Kentucky factory workers,Jack’s your guy. But if you’re looking for a small-town doctor who willhold Wall Street accountable, get spending under control and championthe cause of Kentucky’s working families, your hunt is over.

Energy “Dilettantes”Lead Procession Toward the Cliff in the U.S. Senate – Conn. PaperWonders Aloud How 2 Dudes from New England Got Tasked With This Job. Waterbury (Conn.) American-Republican(5/18) editorializes, “Sen. Kerry was joined by global-warmingdilettante Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., in introducing Cap-and-Tax II.Thankfully, no Republicans, not even mushy-middleman Lindsey Graham,R-S.C., joined the party. So there’s hope wiser men and women in theSenate will block this abomination, at least until voters in Novemberbuild a more permanent firewall against Democratic folly andoverreaching. Sen. Kerry is precisely wrong in his assertion Americaneeds a new energy policy because of the Deepwater Horizon oil-rigdisaster. What it needs is intelligent, ethical, watchful regulation ofoil exploration. Americans have known for at least two years that theMinerals Management Service, the arm of the Interior Departmentresponsible for enforcing such regulations, was corrupt. Sen. Kerryknows perfectly well the Deepwater Horizon disaster is rare if notunprecedented, and that thousands of other oil rigs have operatedwithout incident in U.S. waters for decades. The accident did not setup a clamor for new policy; it revealed a need for more carefulregulation and, perhaps, an investment by oil companies and governmentinto strategies for preventing leaks.