Cap and Trade

World-renowned Jerry Nolte (R-Gladstone) sponsored a forward-thinking and well-researched resolution last week (HCR 32) calling for Congress to reject any cap-and-trade legislation to reduce climate changing emissions. 

In addition to expressing concern with the modest increases in energy costs that would come from such a system -- costs that would be nowhere near what Republican leaders and their industry allies have promised -- Nolte's resolution follows the lead of Missouri's top climate change denier, Blaine Luetkemeyer, in criticizing the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Roy Blunt in today's News-Leader:

Before addressing the attacks on me that were obviously designed to help the liberal candidate in the U.S. Senate race, permit me to make a general point about the economic and energy policies of the one-party Congress directed by Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.

If the League of Conservation Voters' "Stain" ad is "obviously designed to help" Robin Carnahan's Senate campaign, then Roy Blunt's response mail piece was "obviously designed" to help him in the U.S. Senate race. 

Obviously.

Just in case you were wondering about the importance of Gary Forsee's letter to Republican efforts to undermine federal energy legislation, this should clear it up for you:

Missouri Congressman Roy Blunt, a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, today [December 8] backed University of Missouri President Gary D. Forsee’s contention that the "proposed cap and trade model will significantly increase the energy expenditures for all four of our campuses" in a letter to Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (Calif.).

Never mind that Forsee isn't actually contesting Waxman's analysis of his bill -- Forsee is actually expressing relief that he was wrong. 

And never mind that the chairman of the MU Environmental Affairs and Sustainability Committee said their misunderstanding of the facts about the bill is a "little embarrassing" and "We've been wrangling with an issue we didn’t quite understand. We need to really get our facts straight and get the details of the bill fully under control before making any statement about opposing or supporting the legislation." 

Never mind all that -- Blunt is 'backing' Forsee in the dispute.

I really don't understand this argument from UM System President Gary Forsee (also articulated last week by Rep. Chris Kelly):

[Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry] Waxman’s rebuttal was "in some ways" beside the point, Forsee said Monday. His letter was intended to convey the message that a cash-strapped public university system would be hard pressed to handle new unfunded energy mandates — whatever the costs...

For all the fuss his letter stirred up, Forsee may have partly accomplished his goal. The university system now has Waxman’s written assurance that its power plant in Columbia isn’t a “covered entity” under the legislation. That sounds a lot like the exemption Forsee was seeking.

The factual problems with his letter are not beside the point.  Unless I'm missing something, Forsee didn't secure an exemption with his letter – the exemption existed all along, and he just didn't know what he was talking about.

Imagine Forsee wrote a letter to Congress expressing concern about the Martians living in his brain.  If he's politely informed that there aren't actually Martians inside his skull, his letter would not be hailed as an "incredible success" -– it would still have been a silly letter. 

The Tribune reports this afternoon that U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, has responded to UM System President Gary Forsee's letter opposing federal clean energy and climate bill.  It turns out that Forsee's calculations, put together by the Director of Energy Management at MU, are based on an inaccurate understanding the the proposed legislation.

The numbers were based on Environmental Protection Agency and Energy Information Administration estimates and calculated based on the assumption MU would have to initially buy up to 30 percent of the greenhouse gas allowances, according to information from Paul Hoemann, director of university energy management.

University of Missouri students, faculty and alumni joined together in Columbia this afternoon to rally for comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation outside of UM System President Gary Forsee’s University Hall office. A few photos:

A new cartoon from John Darkow, posted yesterday at ColumbiaTribune.com. 

Following up on my post from Sunday, Janese Heavin has a story today for the Daily Tribune outlining UM System President Gary Forsee's various stock holdings and ties to corporations.  Essentially, Forsee's response to questions about his financial interest in Great Plains Energy -- an energy holding company that is actively opposing federal climate legislation --  is that he'll still be rich no matter what happens.  I don't doubt that a bit, but this quote from his official spokesman has me scratching my head:

Forsee serves on the board of Great Plains Energy, the holding company of Kansas City Power & Light, which opposes the bill that would limit greenhouse gas emissions. That’s not a conflict of interest, Hollingshead said, because board members do not lobby on legislative matters.

Why does it matter if Forsee lobbies while wearing his Great Plains hat?  The point is that he's using his official position to advance a position that would benefit Great Plains stockholders and boardmembers, like himself.  And the larger point is that his public advocacy against the legislation contradicts his previous commitments regarding clean energy, and is effectively a call to maintain the status quo.  

The Tribune: 

Faculty members were taken by surprise when they read in the Tribune that [University of Missouri System President Gary] Forsee sent a letter opposing the bill, said Dan Hooley, a professor of classical studies and chairman of MU’s Environmental Affairs and Sustainability Committee.

“He seems to be speaking unilaterally but did not consult with faculty members or the community and with no explanation of his process of thinking,” Hooley said. “It seems to me he does have every right to speak for himself, but he simply can’t speak for the community. That’s not how this campus operates.”

The Beacon's Jo Mannies spoke with the office of Rep. Todd Akin (R-You Serious) about his Thanksgiving lecture series (first noted in this space yesterday).  Apparently, the Congressman is quite serious when he says the Pilgrims can help us understand the horrors of Democratic health care reform proposals. Quoth official spokesman Steve Taylor:

Akin "believes that the principles expressed in the Mayflower Compact ... are definitely relevant to the Medicare debates and to a lot of debates [in Washington], including cap and trade."

Happy to spar with Roy Blunt about their "Stain" ad, the League of Conservation Voters launched a new radio ad today titled "Forgot." Listen:

With the new spot, the LCV also breaks down Blunt's opposition to meaningful climate legislation in Congress: 

Contrary to Rep. Blunt’s claims, the American Clean Energy & Security Act, which the congressman voted against when it passed the U.S. House of Representatives earlier this year, would help create nearly 36,000 clean energy jobs in Missouri. [2] The legislation would also reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign oil and place limits on harmful carbon pollution. (Rep. Blunt also voted against in the American Clean Energy & Security Act when it passed out of the House Energy & Commerce Committee.)

Speaking with KSPR and KY3 last week week, Roy Blunt expressed grave concern with a recent ad from the League of Conservation Voters criticizing his ties to big oil and energy interests and opposition to the clean energy legislation before Congress this year. In both interviews, Blunt suggested that the issue ads circumvented campaign finance laws that limit total donations to a candidate campaign.  On KSPR, he said:

The money you can spend on ads like this are unlimited, so it's an interesting way to kind of get around the campaign finance law...

Read More »

Repower America began a new ad on national cable yesterday to highlight the national security concerns of veterans and national security leaders about destabilizing climate change.

The ad features Iraq War veterans alongside General Brent Scowcroft and General Wesley Clark. 

VoteVets.org has new ads up today supporting their "fight to get a comprehensive clean energy and climate bill through the Senate and on to the President."

Our new ad is blunt and to the point.  Featuring Iraq War Veterans, it makes the case that oil profits to the Middle East fund the same terrorists we're fighting, and closes with the line that "It's not just a question of American energy, it's a question of American power."

Watch the Missouri version:

The Pew Environment Group published a new statewide survey today looking at likely voters' opinions on global warming and proposed Congressional action to reduce carbon emissions.

The findings from the poll are clear:

• A large majority believe global warming constitutes a serious threat
• A solid majority favor action to reduce carbon emissions
• A plurality believe that reducing global warming will create new jobs
• A sizeable majority say they would feel more favorably towards a senator who voted for the clean energy plan
• Most say they would feel more favorably towards a senator for supporting an emissions cap