(June 10, 2008) – Energy and environment experts are praising the U.S. Senate for its rejection of stifling energy restrictions contained in the Lieberman-Warner climate bill. Proponents of the bill mustered only 48 votes, and some observers predicted many of those votes would likely melt away if the bill had any real chance of success.
The statements below can be quoted directly, or the analysts can be contacted for additional information at the telephone numbers and email addresses provided below.
“If there is one thing American consumers do not need right now, it is the substantially higher energy prices that Lieberman-Warner would have imposed. Economists said the bill would have caused gasoline prices to rise by more than a dollar per gallon and energy prices by more than 40 percent … even if an unlikely construction boom of cost-effective nuclear power plants were to occur. Without that dramatic increase in nuclear power, the costs would be even higher.
“China emits more carbon dioxide than any nation on Earth, and it is on pace to be double U.S. emissions within a decade. At the same time, U.S. emissions have remained virtually flat since 2000. The U.S. Senate wisely realized that any emission restrictions on the U.S. economy would have no significant impact on global temperatures, while sending money and jobs overseas to reward a repressive, often-hostile Chinese regime that vows to continue its staggering increase in carbon dioxide emissions.”
James M. Taylor
Senior Fellow, Environment Policy
The Heartland Institute
[email protected]
941-776-5690
“While the defeat of the Lieberman-Warner bill was not unexpected, the margin of defeat was larger than expected. Also, the margin of defeat would have been larger if many Democrats been forced to vote up or down on the actual bill. The margin of defeat shows that global warming alarmists have actually lost ground since the Senate last addressed the issue.
“This bill and other climate bills have lost support because energy and electoral reality are slapping Congress and environmental lobbyists in the face. The public wants more energy and lower prices and the Senate leadership is pushing legislation that will raise prices while doing nothing for the environment. This is the reality of all climate change legislation: The public and the economy will suffer from higher energy prices and the climate will do what it will regardless of our actions — as it always has. With energy prices where they are, and the public in an uproar, what Senator truly wants to defend this bill?
“Oh, and have the Lieberman-Warner supporters noticed that temperatures have been holding steady or slightly declining since at least the turn of the century?”
Sterling Burnett
Senior Fellow
National Center for Policy Analysis
[email protected]
972-386-6272
“Common sense prevailed last week when Congress rejected the largest tax increase and trade restriction bill in decades. Senator Barbara Boxer’s amendments to the Lieberman-Warner bill demonstrated the real motive behind the global warming legislation: a major transfer of wealth from common citizens to the carbon credit rent-seekers through a climate change commission with no accountability to the electorate.
This bill was a government reorganization of the first order with no measurable economic or environmental benefit. The Lieberman-Warner bill was the wrong policy at the wrong time.”
Alexandra Bourne
Vice President, Policy and Strategy
The Heartland Institute
[email protected]
703-517-3585
Nothing in this Media Advisory is intended to influence the passage of legislation, and it does not necessarily represent the views of The Heartland Institute. For further information, contact Dan Miller, executive vice president, The Heartland Institute, at 312/377-4000, or [email protected].
