News

The Waxman Markey Energy Tax is a tax on all carbon-based energy – coal, oil, and natural gas. That means that 78.1 percent of the energy that fuels the State of North Carolina will be taxed. Nearly all of the remaining 21.9 percent of North Carolina’s energy comes from carbon-free nuclear, hydroelectric power, and biomass. Unfortunately, nuclear, hydro power, and as much as half of North Carolina’s biomass energy don’t count as “clean, renewable” energy under the “clean, renewable” electricity mandate included in the Waxman-Markey Energy Tax. In fact, less than 3 percent of the energy used to generate electricity in North Carolina would be “government-approved” under the Waxman-Markey Energy Tax.

The text of the ad follows

Seems like all of us are working harder in this economy just to make ends meet.

But the politicians in Washington, DC don’t seem to get it – voting to bailout Wall Street – rather than helping Main Street.

And just when you think that it can’t get worse – some in Congress are now pushing an energy tax that would be the largest tax hike in history.

Studies show that the bill, known as the Waxman-Markey Energy Tax, could cost our family’s more than $3,100 per year in new taxes.

And that’s not all – this tax will further cripple our already struggling economy – costing more American jobs.

Higher taxes and more job losses – what could Congress be thinking?

Call Congressman G.K. Butterfield at (252) 237-9816.  Tell him that we can’t afford the Waxman-Markey Energy Tax.

Read the whole fact sheet here

The Waxman Markey Energy Tax is a tax on all carbon-based energy – coal, oil, and natural gas. That means that 80.4 percent of the energy that fuels the State of Pennsylvania will be taxed. Nearly all of the remaining 19.6 percent of Pennsylvania’s energy comes from carbon-free nuclear, hydroelectric power, and biomass. Unfortunately, nuclear, hydro power, and as much as half of Pennsylvania’s biomass energy don’t count as “clean, renewable” energy under the “clean, renewable” electricity mandate included in the Waxman-Markey Energy Tax. In fact, less than 2 percent of the energy used to generate electricity in Pennsylvania would be “government-approved” under the Waxman-Markey Energy Tax.

The text of the ad follows

Seems like all of us are working harder in this economy just to make ends meet.

But the politicians in Washington, DC don’t seem to get it – voting to bailout Wall Street – rather than helping Main Street.

And just when you think that it can’t get worse – some in Congress are now pushing an energy tax that would be the largest tax hike in history.

Studies show that the bill, known as the Waxman-Markey Energy Tax, could cost our family’s more than $3,100 per year in new taxes.

And that’s not all – this tax will further cripple our already struggling economy – costing more American jobs.

Higher taxes and more job losses – what could Congress be thinking?

Call Congressman Tim Murphy at (412) 344-5583.  Tell him that we can’t afford the Waxman-Markey Energy Tax.

Read the whole fact sheet here

The Waxman Markey Energy Tax is a tax on all carbon-based energy – coal, oil, and natural gas. That means that 77.5 percent of the energy that fuels the State of Arkansas will be taxed. Nearly all of the remaining 22.5 percent of Arkansas’s energy comes from carbon-free nuclear, hydro, and biomass. Unfortunately, nuclear, hydro, and as much as half of Arkansas’s biomass energy don’t count as “clean, renewable” energy under the “clean, renewable” electricity mandate included in the Waxman-Markey Energy Tax. In fact, less than 3 percent of the energy used to generate electricity in Arkansas would be “government-approved” under the Waxman-Markey Energy Tax.

The text of the ad follows

Seems like all of us are working harder in this economy just to make ends meet.

But the politicians in Washington, DC don’t seem to get it – voting to bailout Wall Street – rather than helping Main Street.

And just when you think that it can’t get worse – some in Congress are now pushing an energy tax that would be the largest tax hike in history.

Studies show that the bill, known as the Waxman-Markey Energy Tax, could cost our family’s more than $3,100 per year in new taxes.

And that’s not all – this tax will further cripple our already struggling economy – costing more American jobs.

Higher taxes and more job losses – what could Congress be thinking?

Call Congressman Mike Ross at (870) 881-0681.  Tell him that we can’t afford the Waxman-Markey Energy Tax.

Read the whole fact sheet here

The Waxman Markey Energy Tax is a tax on all carbon-based energy – coal, oil, and natural gas. That means that 80.4 percent of the energy that fuels the State of Pennsylvania will be taxed. Nearly all of the remaining 19.6 percent of Pennsylvania’s energy comes from carbon-free nuclear, hydroelectric power, and biomass. Unfortunately, nuclear, hydro power, and as much as half of Pennsylvania’s biomass energy don’t count as “clean, renewable” energy under the “clean, renewable” electricity mandate included in the Waxman-Markey Energy Tax. In fact, less than 2 percent of the energy used to generate electricity in Pennsylvania would be “government-approved” under the Waxman-Markey Energy Tax.

The text of the ad follows

Seems like all of us are working harder in this economy just to make ends meet.

But the politicians in Washington, DC don’t seem to get it – voting to bailout Wall Street – rather than helping Main Street.

And just when you think that it can’t get worse – some in Congress are now pushing an energy tax that would be the largest tax hike in history.

Studies show that the bill, known as the Waxman-Markey Energy Tax, could cost our family’s more than $3,100 per year in new taxes.

And that’s not all – this tax will further cripple our already struggling economy – costing more American jobs.

Higher taxes and more job losses – what could Congress be thinking?

Call Congressman Mike Doyle at (412) 261-5091.  Tell him that we can’t afford the Waxman-Markey Energy Tax.

Read the whole fact sheet here

The Waxman Markey Energy Tax is a tax on all carbon-based energy – coal, oil, and natural gas. That means that 95 percent of the energy that fuels the State of Pennsylvania will be taxed. Nearly all of the remaining 5 percent of Texans’ energy comes from carbon-free nuclear, hydroelectric power, and biomass. Unfortunately, nuclear, hydro power, and as much as half of Texas’s biomass energy don’t count as “clean, renewable” energy under the “clean, renewable” electricity mandate included in the Waxman-Markey Energy Tax. In fact, less than 3 percent of the energy used to generate electricity in Texas would be “government-approved” under the Waxman-Markey Energy Tax.

The text of the ad follows

Seems like all of us are working harder in this economy just to make ends meet.

But the politicians in Washington, DC don’t seem to get it – voting to bailout Wall Street – rather than helping Main Street.

And just when you think that it can’t get worse – some in Congress are now pushing an energy tax that would be the largest tax hike in history.

Studies show that the bill, known as the Waxman-Markey Energy Tax, could cost our family’s more than $3,100 per year in new taxes.

And that’s not all – this tax will further cripple our already struggling economy – costing more American jobs.

Higher taxes and more job losses – what could Congress be thinking?

Call Congressman Charlie Gonzales at (210) 472-6195.  Tell him that we can’t afford the Waxman-Markey Energy Tax.

Read the whole fact sheet here

The Waxman Markey Energy Tax is a tax on all carbon-based energy – coal, oil, and natural gas. That means that 98.3 percent of the energy that fuels the State of Utah will be taxed. Nearly all of the remaining 2.7 percent of Utah’s energy comes from carbon-free hydro power and biomass. Unfortunately, hydro power and as much as half of Utah’s biomass energy don’t count as “clean, renewable” energy under the “clean, renewable” electricity mandate included in the Waxman-Markey Energy Tax. In fact, less than one half of one percent of the energy used to generate electricity in Utah would be “government-approved” under the Waxman-Markey Energy Tax.

The text of the ad follows

Energy costs are soaring and our economy is in financial crisis.

Seems like all of us are working harder in this economy just to make ends meet.

But the politicians in Washington, DC don’t seem to get it – voting to bailout Wall Street – rather than helping Main Street.

And just when you think that it can’t get worse – some in Congress are now pushing an energy tax that would be the largest tax hike in history.

Studies show that the bill, known as the Waxman-Markey Energy Tax, could cost our family’s more than $3,100 per year in new taxes.

And that’s not all – this tax will further cripple our already struggling economy – costing more American jobs.

Higher taxes and more job losses – what could Congress be thinking?

Call Congressman Jim Matheson at (801) 486-1236.  Tell him that we can’t afford the Waxman-Markey Energy Tax.

Click here for the fact sheet

House of Wax: As Congress Kicks Off Week-Long Parade on Cap-and-Trade, AEA Poses Top 10 Questions Committee Needs to Answer

Washington, D.C – American Energy Alliance (AEA) president Thomas J. Pyle issued the following statement today as Congress kicked off a week in which four straight days will be devoted to congressional hearings on cap-and-trade:

“Over the next several days, more than 70 witnesses will appear before energy committees and subcommittees of Congress — most there to argue that government efforts to significantly and permanently increase the cost of energy will help create new jobs, reduce imports, and save the planet along the way. None of these witnesses will be among the 13.2 million Americans currently out of work and struggling to make ends meet. And very few will be representing the needs of the millions of American families for whom access to affordable and reliable energy isn’t a part of life that can simply be capped and traded away.

“For these Americans, and millions like them, a number of critical questions must be asked and answered this week: How much will cap-and-trade cost? What should we expect in return? If the answer is fewer emissions and a cooler climate, it’s reasonable to ask what our average temperature might be in 2050 if Congress passes cap-and-trade in 2009. And it’s irresponsible to avoid asking what the state of our economy will be in 2050 as a result.”

Additional questions that should be asked of lawmakers on Capitol Hill this week:

1) Do you think your constituents pay too much or too little for energy?  If you think they pay too much now, what can you tell them about the costs the administration says will be forced upon them by this legislation?

2) Eighty percent of state energy regulators recently polled by the Deloitte Center for Energy Solutions believe that cap-and-trade will result in higher electricity costs for consumers. Do you agree?

3) Have you asked the Congressional Research Service (CRS) for a report on the cost of this legislation to your constituents, including on employment in your district?

4) Will you commit to not voting for this legislation until you are fully aware of the costs it would impose upon your constituents, as determined by CRS, GAO, CBO or any of the other research organizations with which taxpayers have provided Congress for just these purposes?

5) Have you personally decided to support the aims of this legislation by making the choice to purchase more expensive alternative energy for your own family?

6) Will you consider sending out a newsletter to your constituents aimed at better informing them of all the cost increases they could reasonably expect if this legislation were to become law?

7) If cap-and-trade is considered by its advocates to be a “market-driven” approach to addressing climate change, how does one reconcile the need for government-enforced caps and penalties on the emission of carbon?

8) Has the European experience on cap-and-trade – characterized by higher energy prices, job flight overseas, and outright graft – informed your thinking on how the mechanics of a similar system might work in the United States?

9) Have you had a chance to read the new study from Spain detailing how that nation’s “Green Jobs” program resulted in fewer real jobs, and billions in lost and diverted public investment?

10) Chairman Waxman: Beyond the film industry, what other industrial or manufacturing activities in California’s 30^th Congressional District stand to be impacted by your cap-and-trade plan? What percentage of your constituency earns less than $30,000 a year, and thus stands to be hit the hardest by artificial, government-imposed restrictions on affordable energy?

The American Energy Alliance (AEA) is a not-for-profit organization that engages in public policy advocacy and debate surrounding the function, operation, and government regulation of global energy markets.  AEA, an independent affiliate of the Institute for Energy Research, works to educate and mobilize citizens around the idea that freely-functioning energy markets provide the most efficient and effective solutions to today’s global energy and environmental challenges.

#####

www.americanenergyalliance.org

Secretary Travels to San Francisco for Final Hearing on Nation’s Energy Future

SANFRANCISCO – As Interior secretary Ken Salazar travels to the Bay Areatoday to hold the last in his recent series of public hearings on theprospect of expanding America’s energy potential offshore, AmericanEnergy Alliance (AEA) director of federal affairs Kevin V. Kennedyissued the following statement:

“It’s worth noting thatSecretary Salazar is wrapping up his nationwide energy tour preciselyas he started it – by holding a hearing in a state where energy prices,taxes and unemployment rates are among the highest in the nation. Justlike in New Jersey, in California the secretary will find a stateheavily dependent on foreign, unstable energy supplies, and representedby politicians who would rather send Americans overseas to secure anddefend those energy sources, than allow them to responsibly produce vast offshore resources right here at home.”

Kennedyalso noted that California is the nation’s second largest consumer ofoil, situated adjacent to offshore fields that hold more than 10billion barrels of easily accessible oil — much of it in the vicinityof existing offshore oil platforms.  The state also has a terrible budget problem, one that could easily be solved by allowing just a fraction of those 10 billion barrels to be produced.

“Butinstead of pursuing this commonsense, forward-looking strategy foreconomic and strategic security,” Kennedy added, “the state’s electedleadership continues to cling to the memory a spill nearly 40 years old– using it as a cudgel to stamp out anything that approaches a serious,fact-based discussion on the merits of a balanced, supply-orientedenergy policy.”

The good news is that Secretary Salazar appears to have learned a few thingsabout responsible offshore energy production since he left AtlanticCity last week.  When asked what he’d say if he were to have aconversation with one of the many California politicians opposed tooffshore development, Salazar said he’d tell them that ‘[you] need to make sure you’re making informed decisions.’

“Wehope the Secretary will have that conversation with Californialawmakers and the hordes of other offshore energy opponents expected toattend tomorrow’s hearing,”Kennedy added.

More from AEA on domestic energy policy:

• Study:Economic Contribution of Increased Offshore Exploration and Production
• Press Release: Running of the Bull: U.S. “Green Jobs” Rhetoric Runs Smack Dab Into Hard Lessons From Spain
• Blog Posting: Obama Budget: Commitment to Increased Energy Costs

AEA to Salazar:  Looking to Reduce Our Dependence on Foreign Oil?
Create “Green” Jobs?
Welcome to Alaska…

WASHINGTON – As Interior Department Secretary Ken Salazar arrives in Anchorage tomorrowfor the third stop in his nationwide tour concerning the future ofoffshore energy production, American Energy Alliance (AEA) SeniorVice President for Policy Daniel Kish released the following statement:

“If the secretary is serious in wanting to learn how the creation of ‘green jobs’ can be used to combatAmerica’s dependence on oil imports from unstable foreign regimes, he’ll find the state of Alaska has much to teach.  In Alaska, he’ll find a state where the greenest jobs available—at an average $13,000 per month – arein the energy producing sector.  He’ll find a state where coastalwaters contain upwards of 26.6 billion barrels of oil, or theequivalent of 48 years worth of imports from Saudi Arabia.  And he’ll find a state where a pipeline, now runningat one-third its capacity, can once again provide America with more than 2 million barrels a day – more than our daily imports from any overseas nation – while generating tens of thousands of American jobs and billions of dollars of revenue in the process.

“In total, responsible energy exploration off Alaska’sshores could create thousands of well-paying jobs, spawn as much as $49billion in additional economic output, and generate $4.4 billion inannual tax revenue for State and local government coffers – if theFederal government doesn’t stand in the way.

“If the Secretary is truly committed to reducing our need for imports, and creating jobs asgreen as they are real, he’s come to the right place.  Expeditingincreased exploration and development of American energy in Alaska’sOCS, considered to be among the most promising undrilled acreage in the world,would not only provide a foundation for a prosperous energy economy, itwould send a clear signal to our competitors around the globe thatAmerica is finally getting serious about its energy and economic future.