June 11, 2009 10:39 am ET
On June 11, 2009, GOP Reps. Mike Pence, John Shimkus, and Fred Upton wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal touting the American Energy Act, their alternative to the Democrats' American Clean Energy and Security Act. Predictably, the column is full of misinformation.
Reps. Pence, Shimkus, and Upton: "Independent analyses by Charles River Associates Inc. and the National Association of Manufacturers predict the Waxman-Markey bill will cost millions of domestic jobs as manufacturers relocate plants to countries with less draconian environmental regulations." [Wall Street Journal, 6/11/09]
Charles River Associates International Works For The Oil And Utility Industries...
Charles River Associates International (CRA) Has "A Long History Of Assisting Both National And International Oil Companies." According to CRA's website, "CRA has extraordinary capacity to comprehend and meet the business, financial, and structural challenges faced by the oil and gas industry, particularly in the Middle East, where we have a long history of assisting both national and international oil companies and government agencies." [CRAI.com, accessed 6/11/09]
CRA Was Commissioned By The Edison Electric Institute. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists: "A consulting firm, Charles River Associates International (CRA), conducted the analysis for the Edison Electric Institute (EEI), a trade association for big utilities. The analysis, which predicts the bill's cap-and-trade program would hurt the economy, has been criticized even by electric utility companies." [Union of Concerned Scientists via CommonDreams.org, 3/12/08]
...And The National Association of Manufacturers Is NOT Independent
The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) Was Part Of The Global Climate Coalition. The New York Times reported that in the 1990s the National Association of Manufacturers was part of the Global Climate Coalition, "a group representing industries with profits tied to fossil fuels," which "led an aggressive lobbying and public relations campaign against the idea that emissions of heat-trapping gases could lead to global warming." [New York Times, 4/23/09]
NAM's Members Include Major Energy Corporations. As reported by The Hill: "NAM disclosed the identities of 65 of its members on its website. Major corporations, such as AT&T and ExxonMobil, as well as other trade associations, like the American Petroleum Institute and the Edison Electric Institute, were included on the list." [The Hill, 5/1/08; emphasis added]
Reps. Pence, Shimkus, and Upton: "...electricity rates under a cap-and-trade system would, as President Barack Obama said in January 2008 'necessarily skyrocket,' by some estimates up to $4,300 each year." [Wall Street Journal, 6/11/09]
Republicans Can Quote President Obama's Out-Of-Context Comment As Much As They Want, But The Fact Is The EPA Estimates Cap-And-Trade Would Cost Households Less Than $150 Per Year
Even Before Markup, The EPA Estimated Cap-And-Trade Bill Would Cost Less Than $150 Annually. According to the Wall Street Journal: "The Environmental Protection Agency presented its analysis of the Waxman-Markey bill on Tuesday and said the contentious plan would cost households less than $150 a year. That's a far cry from some of the dueling price tags that have been bandied about." [Wall Street Journal, 4/21/09; emphasis added]
Reps. Pence, Shimkus, and Upton: "The cleanest way for utilities to control CO2 emissions is to increase the supply of carbon-free nuclear energy. This is obvious and simple, but in the thousand-page Waxman-Markey bill nuclear power is hardly mentioned. The American Energy Act establishes a national goal of licensing 100 new nuclear reactors over the next 20 years." [Wall Street Journal, 6/11/09]
Yesterday, MMAN Noted That Much Of The American Energy Act, Including The Nuclear Component, Closely Resembles President Bush's Failed Policy Ideas
President Bush Urged "The Construction Of New Nuclear Power Plants By The End Of This Decade." During a weekly radio address, President Bush said: "Nuclear power generates large amounts of low-cost electricity without emitting air pollution or greenhouse gases. Yet nuclear power now produces only about 20 percent of America's electricity. It has the potential to play an even greater role. For example, over the past three decades, France has built 58 nuclear power plants and now gets more than 78 percent of its electricity from nuclear power. Yet here in America, we have not ordered a new nuclear powerplant since the 1970s. So last summer, I signed energy legislation that offered incentives to encourage the building of new nuclear plants in America. Our goal is to start the construction of new nuclear power plants by the end of this decade." [President Bush's Weekly Radio Address, 2/18/08]
Reps Pence, Shimkus, and Upton: "America also needs to develop more of its own natural resources such as oil and natural gas. Yet areas with tremendous energy resources continue to be off-limits. The American Energy Act allows for exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge..." [Wall Street Journal, 6/11/09]
However, Drilling In ANWR Would Have Little Impact
Drilling In Alaska "Would Only Slightly Reduce America's Dependence On Imports." In 2004, the Associated Press reported: "Opening an Alaska wildlife refuge to oil development would only slightly reduce America's dependence on imports and would lower oil prices by less than 50 cents a barrel, according to an analysis released Tuesday by the Energy Department. The report, issued by the Energy Information Administration, or EIA, said that if Congress gave the go-ahead to pump oil from Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the crude could begin flowing by 2013 and reach a peak of 876,000 barrels a day by 2025. But even at peak production, the EIA analysis said, the United States would still have to import two-thirds of its oil, as opposed to an expected 70 percent if the refuge's oil remained off the market." [Associated Press, 3/16/04; emphasis added]
Oil Development In ANWR Would Have Virtually No Impact On The Price Of Oil. In 2008, Politico noted, "at its peak capacity in 2025, ANWR would produce 1 million barrels of oil a day, only reducing world oil prices around 30 cents to 50 cents a barrel...the 2004 report linked above is based on a $27 a barrel cost of oil. Today oil is going for [more than $60 a barrel]. The Energy Department report, which was published during the last vigorous ANWR debate in 2004, notes that oil imports might be reduced by a mere 4 percent, so the country would be importing 66 percent of its oil from foreign countries instead of 70 percent. And none of this would happen until 2025." [Politico, 4/29/08; emphasis added]
Reps Pence, Shimkus, and Upton: "...the American Energy Act will produce more energy, lower fuel bills, create more jobs, yield a cleaner environment, and lead to a more secure nation." [Wall Street Journal, 6/11/09]
Investment In Clean Energy Means More Jobs
Investment In Clean Energy Technology Will Create Over 1.5 Million American Jobs. According to the Center for American Progress, a $100 billion Green Recovery program would create 1,578, 282 American jobs. [Center for American Progress, "Green Recovery," September 2008]
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 $100 billion within the domestic oil industry would create only about 542,000 jobs in the United States. A green infrastructure investment program would create nearly four times more jobs than spending the same amount of money on oil energy resources. And again, spending on oil offers no benefits in transitioning the U.S. economy toward a low-carbon future, while perpetuating the economic and national security vulnerabilities by continuing to rely on oil for the lifeblood of our economy." [Center for American Progress, "Green Recovery," September 2008]
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]
Copyright © 2010 Media Matters Action Network. All rights reserved.