Rep. Scalise Spills False GOP Talking Points

Rep. Scalise Repeats Debunked Anti-Clean Energy Talking Points

Chris Matthews: Congressman, I want you to take a listen to what Senator Tom Coburn, he's from an oil patch state like you, he's from Oklahoma. He said this about the EPA's plans to regulate carbon emissions. Quote, 'it would be stupid for us to do this now, when the rest of the world is not coming along at all. Even if it is the right thing to do. Now is not the time to do it.' What do you make of a congressperson or a senator in this case who says he doesn't want to do the right thing, because other people aren't doing it?

Rep. Scalise: Well first of all, Chris, I think that it's really a shame that the president is trying to capitalize upon our disaster, in shifting, instead of focusing on helping us recover and doing his job, which he's not doing on the ground, he's talking about this cap-and-trade energy tax, which I don't think is the real answer for energy policy, because it would run millions of jobs overseas and it with make our country more dependant on middle east oil, so that's not the answer.

Matthews: What should we do to remove our dependence on fossil fuels in the future. Looking down the road to the fact that we're not going to have fossil fuel. Looking down the road where we know it's dangerous to the climate at some point. How are we going to shift to new energy sources, sir?

Scalise: I'd like to see us using the all of the above strategy, Chris, where we actually don't just use our domestic energy resources, but we also do more to explore wind and solar. But you've got to recognize that wind and solar aren't going to get us where we need to be alone. We need to do more nuclear power. We need to move more to natural gas and clean coal technologies, and fossil fuel is going to be a part of it, but we need to reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil. And his plan not only raises taxes and runs millions of jobs overseas, it increases our dependence on Middle Eastern oil. It's the wrong approach to an energy policy. I would rather see us go in a direction that usually uses American innovation and technology, instead of one that puts more taxes and runs more jobs out of our country.

In Reality, Democrats' Clean Energy Legislation Would Help The Economy...     

Clean Energy Legislation Would Boost GDP By Up To $111 Billion.  According to the University of California-Berkeley: "Comprehensive clean energy and climate protection legislation, like the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) that was passed by the House of Representatives in June, would strengthen the U.S. economy by establishing pollution limits and incentives that together will drive large-scale investments in clean energy and energy efficiency...New analysis by the University of California shows conclusively that climate policy will strengthen the U.S. economy as a whole. Full adoption of the ACES package of pollution reduction and energy efficiency measures would ... boost GDP by $39 billion-$111 billion. These economic gains are over and above the growth the U.S. would see in the absence of such a bill." [UC Berkeley, accessed 1/22/10]

Clean Energy Legislation Would Boost Household Income By Nearly $1,200 Per Year. According to the University of California-Berkeley: "Full adoption of the ACES package of pollution reduction and energy efficiency measures would create between 918,000 and 1.9 million new jobs, increase annual household income by $487-$1,175 per year... These economic gains are over and above the growth the U.S. would see in the absence of such a bill." [UC Berkeley, accessed 1/22/10]

...Create Millions Of American Jobs...

Including 29,000 in Scalise's home state!

Louisiana Will Gain 29,000 Jobs From An Investment In Clean Energy Technologies.  According to the Center for American Progress and the Political Economy Research Institute, Louisiana could see "a net increase of about $2.2 billion in investment revenue and 29,000 jobs based on its share of a total of $150 billion in clean-energy investments annually across the country. This is even after assuming a reduction in fossil fuel spending equivalent to the increase in clean energy investments. Adding 29,000 jobs to the Louisiana labor market in 2008 would have brought the state's unemployment rate down to 3.2 percent from its actual 2008 level of 4.6 percent." [Center for American Progress and the Political Economy Research Institute, Clean-Energy Investment Create Jobs In Louisiana, 6/17/09]

Investment In Clean Energy Technology Would Create Up To 1.9 Million American Jobs.  According to the University of California-Berkeley, "new analysis by the University of California shows conclusively that climate policy will strengthen the U.S. economy as a whole. Full adoption of the ACES package of pollution reduction and energy efficiency measures would create between 918,000 and 1.9 million new jobs." [UC Berkeley, accessed 1/22/10]

Investment In Clean Energy Technology Creates FOUR TIMES As Many Jobs As An Investment In Oil & Gas.  According to the Center for American Progress, "spending $1 million on energy efficiency and renewable energy produces a much larger expansion of employment than spending the same amount on fossil fuels or nuclear energy. Among fossil fuels, job creation in coal is about 32 percent greater than that for oil and natural gas. The employment creation for energy efficiency-retrofitting and mass transit-is 2.5 times to four times larger than that for oil and natural gas. With renewable energy, the job creation ranges between 2.5 times to three times more than that for oil and gas." [Center for American Progress, The Economic Benefits of Investing in Clean Energy, 6/17/09]

Investment In Renewable Energy Has Already Salvaged Many Manufacturing Facilities Closed During Economic Downturn.  Across America, factories and plants abandoned by the old economy have been re-tooled and re-opened to satisfy the growing demand for new energy technologies. For instance, once hopeless manufacturing plants in Pennsylvania, Iowa, and Michigan have re-energized their communities by creating jobs and leading the charge toward a new energy future. [Bloomberg, 4/2/09; Star Tribune, 4/22/09; Grand Rapids Press, 3/6/08]

...And Cost Only Pennies A Day

Reuters: "Climate Legislation Moving Through Congress Would Have Only A Modest Impact On Consumers." According to Reuters: "A new U.S. government study on Tuesday adds to a growing list of experts concluding that climate legislation moving through Congress would have only a modest impact on consumers, adding around $100 to household costs in 2020. Under the climate legislation passed by the House of Representatives in June, electricity, heating oil and other bills for average families will rise $134 in 2020 and $339 in 2030, according to the Energy Information Administration, the country's top energy forecaster." [Reuters, 8/5/09]

EIA: Clean Energy Legislation Would Cost Only $0.23 Per Day. According to a House Energy and Commerce Committee factsheet of the Energy Information Administration's analysis of the American Clean Energy and Security Act: "The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) has completed an analysis of the American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454), as passed by the U.S. House of Representatives... The overall impact on the average household, including the benefit of many of the energy efficiency provisions in the legislation, would be 23 cents per day ($83 per year). This is consistent with analyses by the Congressional Budget Office which projects a cost of 48 cents per day ($175 per year) and the Environmental Protection Agency which projects a cost of 22 to 30 cents per day ($80 to $111 per year)." [House Energy and Commerce Committee, EIA's Economic Analysis Of "The American Clean Energy And Security Act Of 2009," 8/4/09; emphasis original]

CBO: In 2020, Cap-And-Trade Will Only Cost An Average Of $175 Annually, "About A Postage Stamp A Day." In its analysis of the American Clean Energy and Security Act, the Congressional Budget Office wrote: "On that basis, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the net annual economy wide cost of the cap-and-trade program in 2020 would be $22 billion-or about $175 per household." Rep. Edward Markey noted it was "the cost of about a postage stamp a day." [CBO, 6/19/09; House Committee on Energy & Commerce Release, 6/20/09]

Cap-And-Trade Would DECREASE Energy Prices For Low-Income Americans. In its analysis of the American Clean Energy and Security Act, the Congressional Budget Office wrote, "households in the lowest income quintile would see an average net benefit of about $40 in 2020." [CBO, 6/19/09; emphasis original]