Energy and Commerce Committee

Policymakers’ letter asks tough questions re carbon tariffs

by Fran Smith on March 27, 2009

in Economy, Energy, Environment, Global Warming, International, Trade

Yesterday Ranking Members of both two House committees and two subcommittees wrote to the new U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk and asked him to clarify the Administration’s position on the issue of carbon tariffs.  The letter was sparked by recent remarks of Energy Secretary Steven Chu that the U.S. was considering levying tariffs against countries that haven’t taken steps to reduce carbon emissions.

In their letter Congressmen Joe Barton, Ralph Hall, Greg Walden, and Paul Brown cautioned:

Any emissions-related trade policy will be extremely complicated.  Careful consideration of the pros and cons — and legality — of any such policy is critical.  Poor decisions can lead to destructive trade wars that could put tens of thousands of U.S. workers out of a job, and severely harm our economy.

As Congress moves on proposals for mandated reductions in carbon emissions — such as a cap-and-trade scheme — the notion is gaining that “something has to be done,” such as carbon tariffs, so that the U.S. can compete with countries that haven’t committed to emission reductions.  The Republican lawmakers — all on committees that have some jurisdiction on global warming issues — presented a list of hard and focused questions to USTR Kirk on what the Administration is planning and whether some of the serious downside risks of border measures have been considered. (The congressmen are Ranking Members on the Committee on Energy and Commerce and its Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations and the Committee on Science and Technology and its Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight.)

The letter is a formal request, and the USTR is obligated to respond to the policymakers’ questions.  Maybe this will take some of the wind out of the carbon tariff sails, especially since climate negotiators from nearly 190 countries will be meeting in Bonn, Germany starting March 29 to come up with concrete plans for what they hope will be an agreement in December.

So, in the midst of a deep worldwide recession, countries will be planning to make energy less affordable, to force some major emitters out of business, and maybe start a trade war over border tariffs.  Don’t we already have enough economic problems to contend with?

(Hat-tip: Iain Murray)

Travesty–Rep. Inslee’s behavior at Energy & Commerce hearing

by Marlo Lewis on February 12, 2009 · 5 comments

in Energy, Global Warming, Sanctimony

I just watched the Energy & Commerce Subcommittee hearing on “The Climate Crisis: National Security, Public Health, and Economic Threats.”

Committee rules allow the minority one-third of the witnesses. Originally, there were to be four majority witnesses, which works out to only one minority witness, or one-fourth (because two witnesses would equal two-fifths–slightly more than one-third). However, when Chairman Markey learned that Dr. Patrick Michaels of the Cato Institute was to be the minority witness, he added a 5th majority witness, Prof. Daniel Schragg of Harvard University. So the decks were stacked against Michaels 5 to 1.

However, even that was not enough to satisfy Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA). He attacked Michaels personally, accusing him of not being “forthright” with the Committee, trying to “pull a fast one,” and treating the Members like “chumps.” Inslee demanded to know why it was even necessary to have witnesses like Michaels on the panel, when it’s so obvious that global warming is bad and nothing could be more costly than inaction on climate change.

Michaels’s oral testimony may be summarized as follows: (1) Forecasts of the impacts of climate change on national security, public health, and the economy cannot be better than the temperature projections on which they are based; (2) the 21 models used in the IPCC’s mid-range greenhouse gas emissions scenario project a constant, not accelerating rate of global warming through the 21st century; (3) the observed rate of temperature change over the past 20 years has been remarkably constant; (4) however, the observed rate is at or below the low-end of the range forecast by the models; (5) therefore, the models are too sensitive and likely over-predict future warming; (6) hence, also, impact assessments based on those model projections are unlikely to be correct.

In his fulmination, Inslee claimed (a) that Michaels compared apples (observed temperatures) to oranges (model projections of future warming), and (b) that global warming is accelerating. He is wrong on both counts. Michaels compared observed temperatures with model projections over the same period. Finding a poor fit, he drew the only reasonable conclusion: Model projections of future warming are also likely to be erroneous. Also, global warming is not accelerating. Since 1976, the observed rate has been about 0.17 degrees Celsius per decade. So, on the basis of two falsehoods, Inslee essentially called Michaels a liar.

Then, instead of letting Michaels respond, Inslee asked for commentary by Prof. Schragg. This left Michaels exactly 15 second to respond to 4-plus minutes of verbiage from Inslee and Schragg.

The contrast between Dr. Michaels’s calm, clear, patient exposition of scientific basics and Inslee’s rude, arrogant, intolerance of dissenting views could not have been clearer. Global warming zealotry is poisoning the atmosphere of public discourse–that is probably the main conclusion Web viewers draw from this hearing.