Posted on 02/24/2010 3:35:38 PM PST by mdittmar
Madam President, I come to the floor to discuss for a few minutes with my colleague from South Carolina the issue of climate change.
We all know the budget will be forthcoming. We already understand there will be some $650 billion included in the budget for general revenues that would go as revenues from climate – here it is: $646 billion over 8 years. According to some aides to the administration, it could be as much as $2 trillion. Remarkable.
What we have done is we have gone from an attempt to address the issue of climate change through cap and trade to just generating $680 billion or $2 trillion without a trace of bipartisanship, without any consultation, without discussions. What we have done on the issue of climate change, by basically funneling $680-some billion, is we have destroyed any chance of bipartisanship, and the administration is proposing a plan which will have a crippling effect in a bad economy on, particularly, parts of the country and lower income residents in the South and Midwest.
First of all, if we are going to do cap and trade, we should have generous allowances for people who are now operating under certain greenhouse gas emission conditions.
Second of all, any money, any revenues that are gained through cap and trade clearly should not go to just “general revenues.'' Any funding should go directly to the development of technologies which will then reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That has to be a fundamental principle. So the administration, in this budget, is basically using it as just a revenue raiser.
By the way, the entire budget contains no references to nuclear power, except striking funds for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, for which the utilities – passing it on to the ratepayers – have paid somewhere between $8 billion and $13 billion for Yucca Mountain to be used as a spent nuclear fuel repository. So it is remarkable.
The Secretary of Energy told me in a hearing in the Energy Committee: Yucca Mountain is finished. I said: What about reprocessing? Can't do that either.
So here you have nuclear powerplants – there are 120 of them operating in the United States of America today – and we cannot reprocess and we cannot store. So what do we do? We either keep them in pools or ``solidification'' outside of nuclear powerplants all over America – clearly, a threat to the Nation's security.
Let me say to my colleagues, I am proud of my record on climate change. I have been all over the world, and I have seen climate change. I know it is real, and I will be glad to continue this debate with my colleagues and people who do not agree with that. I believe climate change is real.
I believe with what we did in addressing acid rain, which was through a cap and trade kind of dynamic, we were able to largely eliminate the problem of acid rain in America. So it has been done before, and we can do it again, admittedly on a much smaller scale.
In the Antarctic, in Alaska and even in the rain forests of Brazil and here in the United States, we are feeling the effect of climate change. So here we are, with a chance to work together in a bipartisan fashion on the issue, and what does the administration do? They send over a budget which earmarks $600 and some billion, $646 billion, which would then go to general revenues, with no consultation or discussions on the issue. I am proud to have worked with Senator Lieberman in years past on trying to address the issue of climate change.
Of course, there is no mention of nuclear power. I do not wish to spend my time on the floor, too much, on nuclear power. But according to the Department of Energy – and depending on whom you talk to – solar will contribute something like 5, 10, at most, 15 percent of our renewable energy needs between now and 2050. Wind, tide, all those others may contribute another 10, 15, 20 percent.
There is a vast, gaping hole in our demand for renewable energy, and nuclear power and hydro can fill those. This administration has turned its back completely on nuclear power. So what do we tell the ratepayers and the utilities that have been paying billions of dollars? As I mentioned, somewhere between $8 billion and $13 billion they have invested in Yucca Mountain. And now we are canceling it? Well, maybe they ought to get their money back since it was Government action that made Yucca Mountain no longer a viable option.
We need to debate this issue. We need to address it separately. We certainly do not need to address the issue of climate change and how we are going to remedy it through the budget process.
By the way, the Obama administration plans to use revenues as a slush fund to meet budgetary shortfalls, as I mentioned. Only $120 billion of the $650 billion in new revenues would go to climate policy spending, $15 billion a year out of the $650 billion would go for clean energy technologies. There is no detail in the budget as to what this includes or excludes – except for closing Yucca Mountain.
Nuclear is not mentioned in the entire budget. Most of the remainder of the revenues generated from the present cap and trade proposal as sent over and part of the budget will be used to pay for the Making Work Pay tax credit. I would add that the administration argues that the Making Work Pay tax credit will offset the increase in utility bills caused by their cap and trade policy. However, the credit is phased out for taxpayers earning between $75,000 and $95,000 a year for individuals and $150,000 to $190,000 for married couples.
So the administration is insisting on 100 percent auction which, obviously, would be an incredible detriment to a very serious approach. Our economy is suffering. At times such as these, it is particularly important we provide for transition assistance that will not result in higher energy costs. Again, I wish to point out 100 percent auction will harm heavy manufacturers, the very ones who need the help the most: automobiles, concrete, et cetera, and the lower income residents of the South and Midwest.
Every reasonable cap and trade bill in the past has been a blend of auction and allocations – except for this one. The hybrid approach allows heavy manufacturers and coal-fired utilities time to meet emissions targets without needing to exponentially raise energy costs for consumers.
So the administration has sent us a budget with not a single mention of nuclear power and Yucca Mountain no longer an option. No Yucca Mountain means no waste confidence and, certainly, no new licensing, no spent fuel recycling. Secretary Chu is insinuating the French and Japanese, who have been recycling for decades, are ``reckless.''
So what we need to do is take up separately the issue of climate change legislation. It would have a gradual implementation schedule. It would allow for the economy to adapt while we meet our environmental goals. The policy must aggressively promote non-emitting green energy technologies, such as nuclear power, hydro, and others. We should pursue a hybrid approach of auctioning a portion of credits while reserving a large portion of the credits that we could allocate to those who need the most help, complying with the emission reductions. Revenues should be used to promote new technologies, help low-income people with the increased costs of electricity, and pay down the debt – not expand the Federal Government.
So it is with some regret I come to the floor to discuss this important issue with a total lack of bipartisanship on the part of the administration and, again, express my willingness – in fact, my deep desire – to sit down and try to address, in a bipartisan fashion, this compelling issue, which is endangering the future of this planet and certainly our children's and grandchildren's future, and that is the issue of climate change.
Uh, Senator McCain, you can't "know" it if it isn't true. You can only believe it like the rest of your RINO socialist-lite superstitions and mythology.
Scientific evidence is going make your unemployed life more embarrassing than it would have been anyway.
Mom had that. Delusions. I don’t the senator has that disease. I think he really believes this nonsense and has been conned. Like much of the rest of the world.
You’re not from New England, are you? Otherwise you’d certainly see the folly in trying to scratch out the likes of Scott Brown. He’s a big accomplishment for us and to think there’d be a chance of better coming from MA is just out of touch with reality.
Everyone has a choice. Not everyone has character.
“I think he really believes this nonsense and has been conned. Like much of the rest of the world.”
I know, but doesn’t ever seem to you that if not some kind of dementia, the world must be suffering from some kind of mind-numbing disease to be so totally deceived?
Hank
I don’t like McCain, but his saying he believes in “climate change” is not a problem for me. I believe in climate change too and I also think the man caused global warming is bunk.
Further, if McCain is going to help defeat this bill he needs to convince others who actually believe Al Gore and others who actually know its BS but need other reasons to vote against it.
>>They have no choice really.<<
.
Why not? Does this mean that the politician is more important than the policy he espouses, even if the policy may lead to the ruination of the country?
I’m not one of the wrong headed people that think the Republican Party needs to be more moderate to get independant votes. This is precisely why Democrats are in control of everything now. Sure Scott Brown is better than Croakley, but voters need to hold this guy accountable especially now after he just got sworn in, and make sure he doesn’t become a Romeny clone.
Thank you for your heroic service to our country all those years ago. We are grateful for your willingness to risk your life, and admire your courage during your long imprisonment.
Now it is evident that, much like Senator Goldwater, in your later years you have lost touch with conservative principles. Accordingly, we respectfully ask that you withdraw your name as a candidate for re-election to the U.S. Senate.
Please accept our best wishes for your retirement.
Well, Maurice Strong does live in that apartment compound in Beijing....
“Maurice Strong - No Better Place to Hide Than China
Written by Judi McLeod Tuesday, 31 October 2006 17:00
“Maurice Strong, a Canadian oil billionaire, was also the Secretary General of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro where the unveiling of Agenda 21 occurred. He said, “....current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class, involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable.”
The tantalizing tale of missing Kofi Annan pointman Maurice Strong is no longer one of those puzzling unsolved mysteries.
Canadian `Chairman Mo’, a big gun in the international arena, dropped right off the radar screen in April of 2005 when his alleged ties to the UN Oil-for-Food scandal cropped up and wouldn’t go away.
According to the investigative Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Mo’s location has been pinpointed, and it never required a Miss Marple to track him down.
AWOL Maurice Strong is alive and kicking in Beijing.”
FOrgot the tie in.....
“The new world devised by Maurice Strong and George Soros”
Fascinating! We know WHO is doing it. We know WHAT they are doing. We know HOW they are doing it. But the GOP does NOTHING. Or is it collaborating?
Because most Republicans are Free Trader Liberal Anti-American Globalists (FLAGS)....like Soros and Strong. Many in the GOP have the same economic world-view as Soros and Strong.
As much as some protest Soros (GOP, talk-radio, Fox News)...they support the same global economics Soros does. Soros sits on the boards of many companies that many GOP members, past and present, sit on.
Soros has been funding John McCain (Reform Institute) for years....and you had people posting on here willingly vote for John McCain.”
The new world devised by Maurice Strong and George Soros
Canada Free Press ^ | November 24, 2008 | Judi McLeod
Posted on Friday, October 16, 2009 11:35:58 AM by ReleaseTheHounds
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2363925/posts
From McCain’s 2008 platform:
“What is the connection between climate policy and energy security?
• John McCain’s climate plan will reduce our dependence on oil like no other policy we’ve ever seen. It is obvious that we are more dependent than ever on foreign oil, importing more than 60 percent of our oil needs from abroad.
• The market-based cap-and-trade system will be the beginning of a McCain administration’s transition away from an oil-addicted economy and toward an energy supply that is secure, diverse, and domestic.
• It will provide the incentives for our nation’s energy producers to develop low carbon alternative fuels.”
http://www.grist.org/article/mccains-answers/
A few more years and McCain too can be fossil fuel.
Hayworth — visionary [same as most conservatives].
McCain — naive [same as most RINOs].
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.