Fred Upton Delivered Big Time For Big Energy Special Interests

There aren't worst Big Energy whores in Congress than Fred Upton and Joe "Oily Joe" Barton

Our old nemesis-- and by "our" I mean planet Earth's, the L.A. Times explaining that his "disdain for green regulation, he represents one of the biggest threats to planet Earth on planet Earth"-- got his energy bill passed yesterday. Upton's H.R. 8, the North American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act, passed the House 249-174, only 3 Republicans (libertarian leaning GOPers Justin Amash, Walter Jones and Thomas Massie) voting against it... although 9 worthless DINOs crossed the aisle in the other direction-- as they always do-- and voted with the GOP:

• Brad Ashford (Blue Dog-NE)
• Jim Costa (Blue Dog-CA)
• Gwen Graham (Blue Dog-FL)
• Gene Green ($1,221,738-TX)
• Ann Kirkpatrick (New Dem-AZ)
• Ann Kuster (New Dem-NH)
• Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)
• Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog-OR)
• Kyrsten Sinema (Blue Dog-AZ)

If it passes the Senate-- unlikely-- President Obama has promised to veto it. It was known around Capitol Hill as Fred Upton and Global Warming Denier's Corporate Energy Bill. Pennsylvania progressive Democrat Matt Cartwright, who offered a motion to recommit, predicted that Upton and the Republican climate change deniers would go down in history as the "greatest ignoramuses of all time... Sticking our heads in the sand, pretending a serious problem will go away on its own, doing nothing in the face of a grave threat, is not the American way, and it never was."

The League of Conservation Voters urged all Members of Congress to vote no because Upton's bill "further entrenches fossil fuels while failing to make the necessary clean energy investments for our future" and included a provision "that would allow pipelines to be built on National Park land without the necessary environmental reviews... This bill contains an efficiency title that would increase energy use and costs to consumers, a hydropower title that curtails NEPA review along with state, local, and tribal authority over projects on their own lands, and provisions that could lock in dirty fossil energy for decades to come at a time that we should be investing in cleaner, cheaper alternatives." They also asked congressmembers to reject Joe "Oily Joe" Barton's amendment "that would lift the crude oil export ban. This provision is a massive giveaway to the oil industry and would be on top of billions in existing permanent tax subsidies. Multiple analyses show that lifting the crude oil export ban would increase oil production by at least 500,000 barrels per day, leading to more climate pollution and more drilling on our public lands, in the Arctic, and off our coasts."

Frank Pallone is the ranking Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee and he took to the floor of the House to warn that Upton's lobbyist-written bill meant bad news for "the environment, on air pollution and on climate change" and offered an amendment to prevent the bill from becoming law until the Energy Information Administration had analyzed the impact and scored its carbon impact. That was voted down 181-243, a little closer because 4 Republicans (2 from districts in Florida already being impacted by rising oceans) voted with the Democrats, while only 4 (instead of 9) hardcore energy industry whores among the Democrats-- Costa, Peterson, Schrader and, Washington state New Dem Rick Larsen-- voted with the Republicans.

The bill is also a national security threat inasmuch as it lifts the ban on selling U.S. crude oil overseas, something the oil companies heavily bribed Upton and Joe Barton to include. Since 1990 Upton has taken $2,494,518 from energy special interests, more than any other current members of the House other than Joe "Oily Joe" Barton (R-TX) and Steve Pearce (R-NM), formerly an oilfield services company owner himself. This current cycle has seen the Energy Sector step up to the plate for Upton again, his $282,650 (so far) being second only to Republican Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy's $292,550.

The Democrat in southwest Michigan opposing Upton and his Big Oil Machine is professor and environmental activist Paul Clements (you can help him win here) who told us right after the vote that "Congressman Upton is one of the top ten recipients of campaign contributions from Big Oil in the House and Senate combined. With H.R. 8 he once again increases profits for carbon polluters, raises costs for consumers, and undermines environmental protections. We need to quit subsidizing the energy of the past and take the lead in energy for the future."

So who got the biggest payoffs so far this cycle from the Energy Sector? No surprises here; these are the dirty dozen, polluting the earth to pad their campaign war chests this year:

• Kevin McCarthy (R-CA)- $292,550
• Fred Upton (R-MI)- $282,650
• Steve Scalise (R-LA)- $258,550
• Charles "Lord Charles" Boustany (R-LA)- $196,750
• Ed Whitfield (R-KY)- $159,600
• Bill Shuster (R-PA)- $156,700
• John Shimkus (R-IL)- $144,500
• Joe "Oily Joe" Barton (R-TX)- $143,650
• Steny Hoyer (D-MD)- $133,400
• Greg Walden (R-OR)- $129,800
• Will Hurd (R-TX)- $125,400
• Bill Flores (R-TX)- $124,859

Screw Greenpeace, can't we still pretend that the upcoming energy "reform" bill does more good than harm?

Under the Bush regime, the EPA's environmental mission was turned from protection to ravagement. Now the idea seems to be to make sure it can't ever be part of the solution.

“Although we appreciate the Senate’s efforts to reduce global warming pollution, it’s clear that polluter lobbyists have succeeded in hijacking this climate policy initiative and undermined the ambitious action necessary.”

-- Greenpeace Executive Director Phil Radford, in a statement announcing that the group will oppose the energy "reform" bill soon to be taken up by Congress

by Ken

Politico's Jeanne Cummings reports, in "Greenpeace says no to energy bill":

Among Greenpeace’s chief objections are the measure’s “inadequate emission” reduction goals, a provision that strips authority from the Environmental Protection Agency, and the billions set aside for the coal and nuclear industries for research and expansion.

“We call on the president to push leaders in Congress to get back to work and produce a climate bill that presents a clear road map for significantly reducing greenhouse emissions,” he added.

I have a feeling I'm not much different from a lot of folks on the left when it comes to environmental issues. As hard as I try, which in truth isn't all that hard, I don't have more than the most general grasp, and even though I know it isn't going to happen, deep down I keep hoping those issues will just go away.

This is, note, very different from the way folks on the right deal with these issues, which they understand a lot less well than I do -- a terrible thing to say, I know, but I have no doubt that it's true. Over on the Right they learned their catechism of reality from the ultimate saint, Ronnie of Raygun, who taught them that the only test of reality you ever have to apply is whether it makes you feel good. By that test, of course, all inconvenient environmental issues are fake, part of the liberal-socialist conspiracy.

In a feeble attempt to bridge my knowledge gap, I try to keep an eye on the people I've come to trust on the subjects of energy and the environment. Of course those folks do often disagree, but their disagreements are usual particular. For example, with the oh-so-harmoniously named American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, the only question was whether the thing had been so compromised by agents of the polluting industries that it was worse than doing nothing.

Once again that seems to be the standard. There seems no hope of bringing a bill to the floor of either house of Congress which might actually attempt to deal with all that stuff we have less and less time to try to deal with. The only question in play: Will what's being offered do more harm than good?

Greenpeace’s pre-emptive move surprised some in the environmental community for its timing but not its final judgment. Greenpeace was among a handful of major environmental groups that didn’t participate in the discussions that have gone on as the bill was being drafted.

Contacted on Friday, leaders of other green groups said they would wait to make their assessment of the legislation until after it is unveiled.

“We are not going to make any decisions on our views of the bill and our support until we see the details of it. There are a lot of moving pieces still and those pieces are really important to us,” said Josh Dorner, a spokesman for the Sierra Club.

That’s not to say, however, that other environmentalists don’t share Radford’s concerns and could wind up opposing the legislation.

Here's the complete Greenpeace statement:

WASHINGTON - April 23 - Greenpeace has highlighted crucial elements of the draft climate bill necessary to address the catastrophic effects of global warming pollution. Senator Kerry, in a teleconference Thursday, organized by the We Can Lead coalition, outlined specific details from the draft Climate Bill expected to be released Monday that had not previously been publicly available. In response Greenpeace Executive Director Phil Radford issued the following statement:

"Although we appreciate the Senate’s efforts to reduce global warming pollution, it’s clear that polluter lobbyists have succeeded in hijacking this climate policy initiative and undermined the ambitious action necessary.

"We cannot support this bill unless the following elements change:

"Inadequate Emissions Targets: The Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has shown that to avoid the worst impacts of global warming, the United States and other developed nations must achieve emissions cuts of 25-40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 and 80-95 percent by 2050. But this legislation only sets the goal of reducing emissions by some 4 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. Rapid reductions in the short-term are critical to avoiding catastrophic impacts from global warming. With this weak start, it is clear that achieving the needed reductions would be impossible

"Eviscerating the Clean Air Act: The bill is expected to strip the authority that the Environmental Protection Agency has to regulate emissions under the Clean Air Act and the states' authority to set tougher emissions standards than the federal government.

"Money for Dirty technology: The bill is expected to include financial incentives for, among other things, nuclear power, offshore oil and gas drilling, and coal fired energy. This includes billions for "clean coal" technology development, as well as free permits for heavy emitters like manufacturers, oil refiners, and merchant coal generators.

"We call on the President to push leaders in Congress to get back to work and produce a climate bill, that presents a clear road map for significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions, transforms our economy with clean, renewable energy technology, generates new green jobs and shows real leadership internationally. None of this is accomplished by giving billions of dollars to the coal and petroleum industries.”

Uh-oh!

#

For once the adminstration and House Dem leadership went all out for their position. Result: passage of a "climate" bill that's pretty crappy

“This energy bill’s fine print betrays its laudable purpose. The real 'cap' is on the public interest and the 'trade' is the billions from the public to polluters. . . . This bill is 85% different from what President Obama proposed months ago. No wonder his Budget Director called this type of bill ‘the largest corporate welfare program in history of the United States.’ Until greatly improved, until families share in the billions this bill grants powerful lobbies, I cannot support it.”

-- Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX), yesterday on the House floor
(and yet he wound up voting for the bill -- see below)

by Ken

I've been focusing in recent days on my dread about the alarmingly evolving health care reform situation, and so haven't had a chance to express my parallel dread about the even more dreadful Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) bill that squeaked through the House last night, with a bunch of unsurprising Democratic defections and, finally, some pleasantly surprising Republican ones.

Howie wrote last night about the politics of it. I'm afraid, though, that I don't derive much satisfaction from this "victory."

As best I can tell -- and here naturally I have to depend on the people I trust most when it comes to energy and environmental issues, since I don't begin to understand the intricacies of them -- the bill is on balance crap. For all that its proponents keep insisting that, despite the president's lofty approval ratings and the overwhelming Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, this is "the best bill we can get now," and that somehow it's going to be magically "improved" before final passage, or maybe after passage, this strikes me as delusion, perhaps induced by an excess of hope and a shortage of real-world facts to pin that hope on. Now that the polluters have gotten more than they could have hoped for from an energy bill, why on earth would they give up what they've won?

The only question, really, is whether the bill is so bad that we would be better off, from an environmental standpoint, with no bill at all. At this point, I encourage you to click through to a Get Energy Smart Now blogpost yesterday by my go-to guy on these issues, A Siegel, in which he recorded the announced opposition on the House floor of two stalwartly pro-environmental congressmen, Peter DeFazio (D-OR) and Lloyd Doggett (D-TX).

To be sure, Siegel notes: "This was, it is quite likely, a difficult call as there are quite strong (and even compelling) arguments to vote for the bill despite its flaws. Honestly, in their shoes, I don’t know what statement I would have made today."

In fact, in a Thursday post Siegel expressed his admiration for the president's eloquent speech on behalf of ACESl:

In his comments, the President emphasized that this is a “jobs bill”, tying this quite directly to prospects to dig ourselves not just out of the climate hole, but our unemployment hole. The President’s statement is a strong one, a powerful discussion of the value of meaningful, strong climate legislation. And, it will (should) be hard for any Democratic member of the House to ignore his call for a yes vote.

But that doesn't mean that the ACES bill lives up to the president's rhetoric. Let's go to what Congressman Doggett had to say yesterday. Here's a full transcript of the above clip:

This energy bill’s fine print betrays its laudable purpose. The real "cap" is on the public interest and the "trade" is the billions from the public to polluters. It is too weak to greatly spur new technologies and green jobs.

An Administration analysis shows that doing nothing actually results in more new renewable electricity generation capacity than approving this bill. Vital authority for the EPA is stripped, but 2 billion additional tons of pollution are authorized every year, forever. Residential consumer protection incredibly is entrusted to the mercy of utility companies. Exempting a hundred new coal plants and paying billions to Old King Coal leaves him, indeed, a very merry old soul.

This bill is 85% different from what President Obama proposed months ago. No wonder his Budget Director called this type of bill "the largest corporate welfare program in history of the United States." Until greatly improved, until families share in the billions this bill grants powerful lobbies, I cannot support it.

I know there's a lot to take in here, but this whole business is so complicated, and so far beyond the realm of most of our experience, and the stakes are so high, that I really urge you to read the congressman's remarks carefully. There is, at the very least, a strong case to be made that the net effect of the bill is to codify present pollution levels and reward polluters for continuing to pollute.

As a matter of fact, though, Congressman Doggett, under heavy pressure from the House Dem leadership, wound up voting for the bill, as Siegel noted in an update. Here's Mike Willis's Washington Independent report late yesterday afternoon:

Earlier this afternoon, Friends of the Earth, an environmental group that opposes the Democrats’ soon-to-be-voted-on climate change bill, shot out an email commending Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) for his shared opposition.

They’ll want to take that back. Doggett just took to the House floor to announce that he’s now supporting the bill. The reason? He was tired, he said, of listening to the members of “the flat earth society” across the aisle making “inane” arguments.

So there we are, caught between a rock and a hard place. Don't be fooled by the predictable all-obstructionist all-the-time right-wing opposition. This bill is so bad that the polluters must have been popping the champagne last night. The "Just Say No" Republicans said no mostly because that's all they do. As we know by now, they don't even listen to anything the president says. They know it's all vetted by their cadres of oppo researchers to develop tomorrow's "Just Say No" talking points.

Maybe the only thing to do is close our eyes and make believe, as a number of environmental groups appear to have done. As A Siegel pointed out in his post yesterday, in announcing their opposition to ACES, Congressmen DeFazio and Doggett were writing off future support from the League of Conservation Voters (LCV), which on Tuesday -- describing ACES as "the most important piece of environmental legislation to ever come before the House of Representatives," with "the potential to transform America by creating clean energy jobs, improving our national security, and protecting our planet from global warming pollution" -- announced "the unprecedented decision that the organization will not endorse any member of the House of Representatives in the 2010 election cycle who votes against final passage of this bill."

(Side note on typical Inside the Beltway weasel-wording: Note that the language specifices voting "against final passage of this bill." In other words, in typical congressional fashion, members are apparently free to oppose the bill all they like without incurring the wrath of the LCV, as long as they vote for "final passage.")

To end on the most optimistic note possible, let's give the last word to LCV president Gene Karpinski, who wrote in his Tuesday letter to all House members, “The stakes could not be higher; a safer, healthier planet and a new energy economy hang in the balance, and it’s imperative that members of Congress be on the right side of history.”

If that's not enough, I expect it's just a matter of time before we hear that Santa Claus and the tooth fairy are endorsing ACES.

#