The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Chair is Democratic California Senator Barbara Boxer; the ranking committee member is Republican Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe. Recently, Boxer put forth a list of “principles” to address “Global Warming.” Inhofe, as usual, answered Boxer’s crazy shopping list with some sensible remarks.
Typical of the contents of the Democratic Platform, Boxer and her committee Democrats put forth the following rambling, nebulous list of ‘principles:’
- To reduce emissions “to levels guided by science to avoid dangerous global warming” and to set targets that are “certain and enforceable,” as well as adjustable.
- To maintain state and local anti-warming efforts.
- To utilize a market-based system — that means cap-and-trade, as opposed to a carbon tax, which some economists favor to reduce emissions.
- To use proceeds from the sales of emissions permits for a variety of uses, including: support for consumers, governments, businesses and workers (presumably to help offset higher energy prices under the system); investments in alternative energy; preserving wildlife and ecosystems threatened by warming; and money for developing nations to help them respond to warming.
- To ensure a “level global playing field … so that countries contribute their fair share to the international effort to combat global warming.
Senator Inhofe responded with frankness and reality, in stark contrast to the vague list above:
“At a time when Congress is debating a near-term multi-billion-dollar bailout for the American economy, once again the Democrats are proposing principles for climate legislation that will impose a long-term multi-trillion-dollar energy tax on families and workers,” he said.
“As demonstrated last year, when it comes to drafting comprehensive climate legislation, the devil is in the details. These principles offer nothing more than a punt on all of the difficult issues that Americans expect to be honestly debated. Congressional cap-and-trade bills, often touted as an ‘insurance policy’ against global warming, would instead be nothing more than all economic pain for no climate gain. We look forward to debating these tough issues in the Committee this year.”
The emphasis above is mine.