Studies Agree... Lieberman-Warner Would Cause Energy Costs To Rise

While there is much uncertainty swirling around the Lieberman-Warner climate bill, one thing is for certain: if it passes, consumer energy prices will rise.

That is the consensus that came out of this morning’s Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee’s hearing on Capitol Hill, when representatives from several government agencies testified regarding Lieberman-Warner’s economic impact.

Senators heard about studies conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency, the Energy Information Administration and many others. Each study has different numbers and makes different assumptions about the economy and our future energy usage. But they agree on one point: costs will go up.

The prospect of higher energy costs should worry the average American consumer who is already being bitten by high fuel costs. Every day, it seems, we’re being reminded of the linkage between higher energy costs and our economy.

But where we take issue with the Lieberman-Warner bill is that we believe that there are ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions without unnecessarily increasing energy costs on American consumers. We’re committed to supporting a mandatory federal program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions... it’s just that we can’t support a bill that doesn’t also do everything possible to keep energy costs affordable for American families and businesses.

Given that this bill is essentially not going anywhere during this term of Congress (even it if were to pass the Senate, there is little to no appetite to consider a bill in the House this year), senators would be better served to “keep their powder dry” and instead look for alternative strategies that would achieve emissions reductions, protect energy security and keep energy costs affordable for consumers.

Comments

[David Olney]

Kill the bill and put it out of its misery.

[paul]

stop Lieberman-Warner bill

[Dick]

This bill is Anti-American, harms National Security and is cheered on by the ideology of the left leaning, Commies in the developing world as a clever way for the USA to be forced to further reduce our manufacturing capacity. It is a matter of Economics and National Security. Who is going to help those in need the next time a Tsunami or Earthquake creates a catastrphy?

[DON HOLLY]

HASN'T AMERICA DONE OUR SHARE?

MY BUSINESS IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRIES.
SINCE ENVIRO"MENTALIST" HAVE LOBBIED WASHINGTON REGARDING POLLUTION OF ALL VARIETIES, THE USA HAS MADE GREAT STRIDES AND ADJUSTMENTS IN THE "SMOKE STACK" INDUSTRIES TO ALIGN THEIR EMISSIONS TO MANDATES OF WASHINGTON.
THIS IS GOOD, BUT AT WHAT COSTS.
AMERICA HAS LOST IT'S INDUSTRIAL POWER TO CHINA AND OTHER COUNTRIES WHO DO NOT HAVE THE SAME EMISSION STANDARDS IMPOSED ON PRODUCTION. AMERICA NEEDS TO AWAKE TO THE FACT THAT WE HAVE DONE OUR PART, AND NEED TO HOLD CHINA AND OTHER INDUSTRIALIZE COUNTRIES ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE CURRENT GREENHOUSE GAS PROBLEMS.
AMERICA HAS GIVEN UP TO MUCH BY BECOMING "GLOBALIZED" IN ATTEMPT TO FIX WORLD PROBLEMS.
LET'S LEARN TO BE SELF-SUFFIENT ONCE MORE. WE CAN MAKE OUR OWN PRODUCTS, PUT MORE PEOPLE TO WORK IN OUR OWN FACTORIES AGAIN, AND EXPORT OUR PRODUCTION TO COMPANIES WHO RECOGNIZE US AS THE UNITED "STATES" OF AMERICA
UNDER "GOD" WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

['Lil Richard Cheney]

Did you guys approve the post that referred to liberals as "commies"?

[David with ACCCE]

Thank you to "Lil Richard Cheney" for bringing up the topic of name-calling. We ask all participants to play nice. We're here to have a serious discussion about America's energy future... not resort to name-calling.

[Christine Sachau]

Everyone as a responsible citizen needs to learn to conserve, not waste. However; when I was in high school in the 1970's, they told us that the scientists were warning us that there would soon be a new ice age. Why don't we bring that up to the media. I am sure that I am not the only one who was told that.

[Al Justice]

Why is the national human crisis in Central Appalachia never mentioned when we talk about clean energy, particularly coal? Balanced energy should also discuss human energy, and thoroughly include the regions involved in producing coal in a just and equitable spirit.

Destroying entire regions and ways of life, knowing full well that even if America were totally nuclear, that the coal would still be on the market is the starting point here.

And we truly are not that many steps away from Shakespear's lament: "fair is foul and foul is fair" in our imperfect engineering that is fluffed and spinned now on a national level. 'All that glitters, is not gold'.

Moreover, the importance of coal to clean water and survival in the future, is being totally neglected in a conversation about coal. It really is, more than deifying energy to steal coal.

To better understand how unrelated elements are grouped together to make false arguments read Jonathan Swift's "Gulliver's Travels" five times, then find out what he really meant. It's all really ludicrous.