Will Senate vote on comprehensive energy legislation come up ACES?

As the recently passed House bill, known as the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), works its way to the US Senate, be prepared to hear all sorts of arguments against this crucial legislation. Specifically, ACES includes comprehensive energy and climate reform which would create standards for increased renewable energy and efficiency while imposing 'caps' on greenhouse gas emissions. In order to insure the razor thin victory in the House (219 -212), the final House bill leaves a lot to be desired.  But even the watered down final version of the bill appears to be have the strong support of environmental scientists as well as influential conservation groups like the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) and the Sierra Club. Not perfect but it's a start. 

 

Based upon the media chatter, expect big business and special interest energy groups aligned with Republican and several 'Red State' Democratic Senators to be pushing the following three arguments:  

 

1. Man made global warming is really a hoax.

 

2. The extra costs will fall most heavily on the 'little guy'.

 

3. ACES legislation will send more jobs overseas.  

 

Do any of these arguments have merit? And, if so, are they strong enough to warrant the defeat of this legislation? Let's take a look at each of these three right wing talking points:

 

1. Man made global warming a hoax.

 

First let's take a look at the science. Based on well documented global statistics compiled over the past century, there is no question that the Earth's surface and oceans are warming up. Climate research shows that the root cause of this warming is the result of man made greenhouse gases. Evidence that the earth is warming is being recorded all over the globe. Documented evidence confirms that the earth's average temperature has risen more than 1 degree Fahrenheit with increases of up to 2 degrees Fahrenheit in parts of the Arctic.

 

Scientists have determined through core samples taken from the earth's polar ice sheets that today's concentration of greenhouse gases are higher than they've been for hundreds of thousands of years. Now, some may argue that the earth has always experienced natural climate change and we obviously survived and thrived. However, those skeptics fail to realize that the earth got warm over millions of years allowing ecosystems time to adapt. Today we are experiencing rates of increase in greenhouse gases and warming that exceed those natural rates by a factor of 100. Since the Industrial Revolution, man made greenhouse gases have accomplished in 150 years what natural processes do over millions of years.   

 

The product of this extensive climate research has been put to use in computer models to help scientists understand the Earth's climate, predict long-term weather patterns, and calculate the extent of global warming.  Based on these models, experts such as Nobel Prize winning Energy Secretary Steven Chu state that another 1 degree Centigrade increase was certain to occur and "There's a reasonable probability we can go above 4 degrees Centigrade to 5 and 6 more." Addressing the affects that global warming will have here in the United States, at the recent Summit of the Americas, Chu went on to state the following: "Let me state what the official IPCC (the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) prediction is: It (sea levels) could go up as much as three-quarters of a meter (30 inches) in this century, but there is a reasonable probability it could be much higher than that".  According to the Energy Secretary, the rapid melting of the polar ice caps causing a sea rise in levels of one meter would force coastal areas around Florida and Louisiana to move much farther inland and even our West Coast would not be spared. All three airports in the San Francisco Bay area would be under water.

 

I think it's safe to say that if you believe the junk science being pushed by the opponents of comprehensive energy and climate reform, then man made climate change is a hoax.  If you believe in real science, man made climate change poses a clear and present danger to the United States as well as to the rest of the world.

 

 

It seems that if anything costs money and does not involve military spending or subsidies to Big Business, the majority of Republican politicians become the champions of the "little guy" the "man on the street". The warriors for the "middle class", "minorities" and the "working poor". 

 

Tax cigarettes! "Unfair to minorities and the poor who represent half of all smokers" shouts that institution of the exploited working class, better know as the Editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. 

 

Tax gasoline and the pump! The last two republican candidates not named Bush, (Bob Dole and John McCain) were not only against raising the gas tax; they wanted to either suspend or roll back the federal gasoline tax (conveniently just before an election) as a way to help "Joe Six Pack". The windfall it would have provided Big Oil would just be a fortunate "coincidence". 

 

Instead of taxing gas at the pump, how about a windfall profit tax on the oil companies? That would spare folks on main street while raising revenue to help out the "little guy"? I'm sure there must be a bunch of Republican congressional leaders who think this is a good idea. 

 

There is no question that comprehensive energy and climate reform will cost money and everyone will be forced to sacrifice something. But the real victims of the adverse affects of global warming will certainly fall heaviest on the poor and middle class. My suspicions are that the Senators who vote against meaningful reform will find a way to cope with the consequences of global warning. My guess is that their grandchildren may not fare as well.

 

3. The American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) will send jobs overseas.   

 

This Republican talking point was was elegantly articulated by House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) when, after staging a mini-filibuster, he called the House bill a "pile of s--t" and said the legislation is going to "....ship American jobs overseas to countries like China and India." 

 

Contrary to Mr. Boehner's histrionics, Henry A. Waxman the chairman of the Energy and Environmental Committee states that the legislation will create millions of clean energy jobs that can't be shipped overseas. Wind, solar, geothermal, and other green technologies are, by their very nature, not transferable.

 

Finally, for those politicians who are really interested in keeping jobs here in American, I proffer the following suggestion: Sponsor legislation that will revise the tax code loophole that rewards companies for shipping jobs over seas.  Known by big business as "unrepatriated earnings", this is a loophole in the tax code that allows companies not to pay the full 35% U.S. corporate tax rate on foreign income when that money remains invested overseas. Here is how it works:

 

But here's how the loophole is employed: The U.S. subsidiary simply keeps the money offshore and certifies to its accounts that the money is invested overseas. It never remits the money to the parent and so never pays the $150 million to the U.S. Treasury. Instead of paying $350 million in taxes, it pays only $200 million in taxes to the foreign country. Uncle Sam gets Zip! Nothing! Nada! Is there any wonder why we are seeing so many jobs lost to foreign countries? This little loophole not only deprives Uncle Sam of sorely needed tax revenue, it's a huge incentives for companies to send jobs overseas. 

 

Instead of rushing to close this loophole which will keep jobs in America by removing the incentive for companies to ship jobs overseas, politicians, sponsored by Big Business have argued that "unrepatriated earnings" is just another "adjustment" to the system to try to keep U.S. corporations from being hobbled into uncompetitiveness. 

 

I'm afraid that Miami will be three feet underwater before we find a Republican Senator that will sponsor legislation that would close this tax loophole.