Political Hay
Ten Questions for Steve Scalise
A Republican congressman discusses energy policy, cap-and-trade, and President Obama's spending plans.
Steve Scalise is a Republican in his first full term representing Louisiana's First Congressional District, replacing now-Gov. Bobby Jindal. He is active in the debate over energy policy, particularly cap-and-trade.
TAS: With the recent defection of Arlen Specter to the Democratic Party, does the role of the Republican minority change? What institutional leverage do Republicans still have in Congress?
Congressman Scalise: Sen. Specter almost lost the Republican primary in 2004. His switch was purely a politically motivated decision on his part to try salvaging his re-election chances, which are still in jeopardy.
TAS: The sad passing of Jack Kemp reminds us that Republicans have previously come up with innovative policy ideas while in the minority -- and those ideas haven't always come from people in the leadership. What are some of the new ideas being formulated by today's Republican minority?
Congressman Scalise: I have been working with many other Republicans to propose solutions that address many of our nation's problems. We have proposed common-sense solutions rooted in the ideals of lower taxes, less government and more individual freedom. There is a growing group of core conservatives who have stood up against taxpayer-funded bailouts and reckless spending, while proposing fiscally responsible solutions to get our economy back on track, provide tax relief to families and small businesses and balance the federal budget.
TAS: What will the consequences be of the cap-and-trade energy plan being pushed by President Obama and congressional Democrats?
Congressman Scalise: President Obama is proposing a "cap and trade" energy tax that will raise utility costs on every American family to generate $646 billion in new taxes, while shipping millions of American jobs to foreign countries. According to the National Association of Manufacturers, the President's bill will cost 3 – 4 million jobs that will be shipped to countries like China, India and Brazil.
According to Peter Orszag, the President's own budget director, the average American family would pay about $1300 more in utility costs per year for a 15% reduction in CO2 emissions, which is significantly less than the cap sought in President Obama's proposed budget. Orszag testified before Congress last year saying that price increases borne by consumers are essential to the success of their "cap and trade" energy tax.
Even President Obama has acknowledged that his "cap and trade" energy tax will lead to higher electricity prices when he said, "under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket."
As a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over national energy policy, I will continue fighting to oppose bad policies that threaten our economy. Rather than a "cap and trade" scheme that will raise taxes on American families and ship millions of jobs overseas, we need to pass a comprehensive national energy policy that will further develop the technologies for renewable sources of energy like wind and solar, encourage more conservation, while also expanding our own natural resources including oil, natural gas, clean coal, and nuclear power.
TAS: How likely is this plan to pass in its current form?
Congressman Scalise: The more information Americans find out about the "cap and trade" energy tax, the more they don't like this attempt to impose a national tax on energy while shipping millions of American jobs overseas. That's why Chairman Waxman has refused to disclose many of the key details of the bill while using procedural tricks to deny the very transparency that they promised the American people. Even former Chairman Dingell (D-MI) said of "cap and trade," "It's a tax, and a great big one." The American people are seeing more and more that President Obama's "cap and trade" proposal is nothing short of an energy tax that will raise utility rates on all families while shipping millions of jobs overseas.
TAS: What would a Republican energy and environmental agenda look like?
Congressman Scalise: I joined with more than 40 House Republicans to introduce The American Energy Innovation Act that represents a fiscally responsible approach to reducing our dependence on Middle Eastern oil, producing more renewable alternative sources of energy, and putting more Americans to work by:
Promoting greater conservation and efficiency by providing incentives for reducing energy demand and creating a cleaner, more sustainable environment.
About the Author
W. James Antle, III is associate editor of The American Spectator. You can follow him on Twitter at http://Twitter.com/Jimantle.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (51) | Leave a comment
Leave a Comment
Related Articles
More Articles by W. James Antle, III
More Articles From Political Hay
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/05/19/ten-questions-for-steve-scalis
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The United Nations' Rogue Agency
- Bowling Alone
- Who's Really Conservative?
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
David Mathews| 5.19.09 @ 7:02AM
Scalise: "I have co-sponsored legislation (H.R.391) that would clarify that EPA does not have the authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate Greenhouse gases, which they have never before had the authority to regulate. :
Republicans love pollution and hate science. Is it any wonder that the Republicans aren't equipped to lead and have degenerated into a politically irrelevant extremist minority?
If the Republicans are too dumb to comprehend science and respond rationally to risk they should pray to God for the Rapture to rescue them from the approaching horrors ... oh, they already do!
Griff| 5.19.09 @ 8:03AM
Davette,
Far from hating science, Republicans have actually looked at the scientific facts, while you on the left rely (as usual) on feelings, emotions and "what should be".
Here are some facts about our climate and CO2:
1. CO2 does NOT drive temperature increases. It is the other way around. The Vostok ice cores proved this.
2. Out of the 100% of CO2 released into the atmosphere every year, only 3% comes from human activity. Please explain to me how 3% trumps the other 97% in your world.
3. Out of 100, 000 molecules of atmosphere, CO2 comprises 38 of them. That's 38/100,000ths. Miniscule amount and we are to believe that .00038 of atmosphere is causing all these changes?
4. It would take almost double the rate of CO2 being pumped by humans in the atmosphere every year for 5 years non-stop to change the 38 molecules per 100,000 atmospheric air molecules to 39. Hardly cause for alarm is it?
The point is that the more you know the less the numbers add up. This is why you and the rest of the pseudo-intellectual leftist/alarmists want no one questioning the facts. The issue is less about real science and more about using the environment to push a large wealth redistribution scheme.
The temperature of the Earth and its atmosphere has been going up and down in long cycles for at least the last million years, and there's no convincing evidence that the slight increase in temperature during the 20th century (there's been hardly any measurable increase so far this century) is anything more or less than the normal variation.
More scientific facts:
5. The Earth's warm periods (during one of which Greenland was named Greenland -- for good reason), many of them warmer than we are now, have been some of the planet's more prosperous times.
6. Even during the 20th century when the temperature of the planet went up about .7 of a degree Celsius (we have to say "about" because taking the planet's temperature is difficult, there being no clear place to stick the thermometer), temperature did not vary with the levels of CO2 being produced by Man. Much of the warming took place during the first half of the century before Man became really good at producing greenhouse gasses. Then temperatures actually went down from about 1940 into the seventies, the period of the most rapid industrialization on the planet, before starting up again in the eighties. Again, the evidence tends to show that CO2 levels increase after warming as an effect rather than preceding it as a cause.
7. Computer models relied on by scientists to predict future global temperature have been consistently wrong in the predictions they've made for the last decade-plus, vastly overestimating actual global temperatures.
8. While global temperatures have not varied with the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, they have varied pretty closely to solar cycles. Which, as our Sun is the source of all heat, makes a good deal of sense.
What seems crystal clear is that what has come to be known as "climate change" (nee "global warming") and the horrors that are said to attend it are not scientific questions. They aren't. The issue is political. Period.
Indiana Alex| 5.19.09 @ 8:26AM
Liberals hate logic and intellectual rigor.
Griff| 5.19.09 @ 8:35AM
Indiana,
Does it strike you that Dave (Davette?) wites and thinks like a coed who has just finished her first Sociology class and is ready to change the world for the better? I think he/she/it would be well advised to take a few Econ classes before re-joining the discussions on this site.
Big J| 5.19.09 @ 8:40AM
Griff, you make excellent points, but I am afraid they fall on deaf ears.
There is another aspect on the "climate change" debate aside from politics. It strongly resembles religion. You could try to convince and Atheist that there is a God until you are blue in the face. Because the matter is based on belief, you will not gain any ground whatsoever.
The left has chosen this cause de jour to inflict wealth redistribution. Not only that, but they want to implement the changes necessary at an alarming pace. "Quick, pass legislation before the majority debunks this ridiculous myth!".
It used to be over-population.
Then it was "global cooling".
Then it was "global warming".
Now it's "climate change".
Reminds me of the line in Blazing Saddles:
"A toll bridge? What'll they thank of next?
Somebody better go back and get a s**tload of dimes!"
Indiana Alex| 5.19.09 @ 8:54AM
Griff,
Dave does no thinking of his own. He gets his talking points from Daily Kos and probably a memo faxed to him daily from ACORN and cuts and pastes.
They remind me a lot more of chidren than coeds.
Mark H| 5.19.09 @ 8:55AM
Griff,
Excellent points all. But, don't try to use logic and reason on liberals. I'm releasing CO2 for the plants because it makes me feel good to do something for the earth! I know it makes no sense to you, but it does to all the libtards out there.
Pingback| 5.19.09 @ 9:18AM
Budget Taxes American California | World News links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Fred| 5.19.09 @ 9:23AM
Its a proven scientific fact - Liberalism is a mental disorder. I personally haven't met an intelligent liberal yet in my life.
brat magursky| 5.19.09 @ 9:45AM
Open comment to Mr Mathews & all his ilk.....
I work to pay the bills I have chosen to burden myself with. I try to live within my means. I DO NOT expect others to pay for my poor life choices. When are you liberal types going to understand that this is the the norm & it works just fine...take your socio-eco-green garbage wealth distribution & shove it down your own throats & leave the rest of us alone. I am not afraid of liberalism...i am afraid of the the trickle down stupidity it propagates!
Gill O'Teen| 5.19.09 @ 9:54AM
One difference between the Plant and Animal Kingdoms is that vegetation inhales carbon dioxide and exhales oxygen; whereas, animals, even liberal trolls, inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. This is a marvelous symbiotic arrangement that has served Creation well since its beginning. So carbon dioxide is essential for all life. Without it, plants die. Without plants to eat, animals die. Gee, maybe that’s part of the reason humans are considered carbon-based life forms.
Dustoff| 5.19.09 @ 10:20AM
Guys, guys, guys. WHY do waste your time trying to convince Dave of your opinion. He/she doesn't care. Just insults is all he/she offers. It's like talking to a Parrot. (why?)
Your just wasting your time.
Freya| 5.19.09 @ 11:06AM
Griff,
Wasn't going to bother, but I'll tackle one of your points.
"Out of the 100% of CO2 released into the atmosphere every year, only 3% comes from human activity. Please explain to me how 3% trumps the other 97% in your world."
Because the global eco-system absorbs 98% of that emitted carbon. Without human emissions, all of the carbon is taken up (in almost all years, anyway). Add human emissions, and the overflow goes into the atmosphere. Now, you could try capping volcanoes (which wouldn't make much difference anyway; volcanic CO2 emissions are a hundredth of human CO2 emissions), you could try and stop animal life from breathing, or you could try cutting back on industrial emissions, using proven and currently available technology.
Crusader| 5.19.09 @ 11:52AM
I seriously didn't get past the first two, ahem, "answers." If this is the best republicans have to offer, then my condolences.
Its almost like the Tea Parties didn't happen. Millions of people are looking for a true leader, someone who won't compromise their values, someone who is a reflection of the community they serve, and all we get is
"I've been working on numerous policies with numerous republicans that will help numerous people blah blah effing blah."
Wow.
tonypal| 5.19.09 @ 1:06PM
David Mathews:
Congratulations. You've finally uncovered our secret. We're actually not even humans at all. We don't breathe clean air, instead preferring carbon monoxide. Personally, I love a nice warm glass of mercury-contaminated water.
As for my home, I just burrowed a nice hole into the local garbage dump. It's absolutely beautiful and I can't wait for a nice hot, humid summer day for things to really get cooking here.
One of my favorite recreational activities is driving down the road in my giant Humvee, fueled with illegally obtained leaded gasoline, chucking garbage out the window. Of course, I can only do this in certain areas, as those pesky humans insist on passing laws against littering. What fools.
I do like going on vacation, but I don't go very far because I am deeply concerned that I might drive off the edge of the earth. I usually go once a year, generally around the time the sun is done making its revolution around the earth.
Naturally, I'm a republican. I still have these quaint notions that government should not be part of every facet of my life. I also like to pray to God every night before I go to bed. I guess I believe in Him because while the big bang theory is interesting and even plausible, I just can't quite get past this one nagging question: Where did that tiny, infinitesimally dense speck of matter come from? Do you know?
Sarah| 5.19.09 @ 1:55PM
Freya, to comment to your comment:
""Out of the 100% of CO2 released into the atmosphere every year, only 3% comes from human activity. Please explain to me how 3% trumps the other 97% in your world."
Because the global eco-system absorbs 98% of that emitted carbon. Without human emissions, all of the carbon is taken up (in almost all years, anyway). Add human emissions, and the overflow goes into the atmosphere. Now, you could try capping volcanoes (which wouldn't make much difference anyway; volcanic CO2 emissions are a hundredth of human CO2 emissions), you could try and stop animal life from breathing, or you could try cutting back on industrial emissions, using proven and currently available technology. "
Take what you said and apply it to Griff's point number 3:
". Out of 100, 000 molecules of atmosphere, CO2 comprises 38 of them. That's 38/100,000ths. Miniscule amount and we are to believe that .00038 of atmosphere is causing all these changes?"
Methinks you're making a mountain out of a molehill - the whole problem behind "climate change." Even if we are pushing the CO2 levels higher, adding only three percent onto the .00038 of the atmosphere that is CO2, how is a rational human being to think that it will make a huge difference that will inevitably spell catastrophy for the Earth as a whole? Simple. It won't.
Freya| 5.19.09 @ 2:08PM
Sarah,
I see you brought out another classic argument. (I guess I missed it on Griff's list)
I've seen that point a lot of times, and it's a pretty clear case of intellectual dishonesty, talking of CO2 as a percentage of the entire atmosphere, when almost all of that atmosphere contributes nothing the greenhouse effect. The three most common gases in the atmosphere, N2, O2, and Ar, are not greenhouse gases. Take them (99% of the atmosphere) away, and the GHG doesn't change one bit. Water vapor, at an average of a little than 1% of the atmosphere, is easily the most common greenhouse gas, but it's been repeatedly shown that CO2 is responsible for between 10 and 30 percent of the greenhouse effect.
Freya| 5.19.09 @ 2:11PM
I don't know exactly what you mean by "catastrophe", but if you double CO2, you're adding an extra 10% on to the greenhouse effect. It's like putting an extra blanket on.
Freya| 5.19.09 @ 2:14PM
I think you're misunderstanding the 3% figure too. We're adding 3% (actually 2) of total annual carbon flux into the atmosphere every single year. Doesn't seem like much of a difference, but if you keep doing it for forty years...
Jerry| 5.19.09 @ 2:33PM
I've seen that point a lot of times, and it's a pretty clear case of intellectual dishonesty, talking of CO2 as a percentage of the entire atmosphere
Speaking of intellectual dishonesty, how about addressing the original point that there is no, zero, zilch, nada evidence that CO2 EVER acts or has ever acted as a driver of temperature. Outside of computer models notable by their demonstrated inability to predict future world temperature, there is no historical or scientific evidence in support of this proposition. Ice core samples consistently show that temperature increases occur on average 600 years before CO2 increases, and temperature declines occur centuries before CO2 declines as well
There is no evidence that CO2 concentrations, whether human or of other sources, ever drives temperature. Temperature always drives CO2
World temperature today is well within the natural variations that have occurred over history - as are CO2 concentration. Arguments about this or that percentage of CO2 are just so much nonsense when all available historical and scientific evidence indicates that changes in CO2 levels are a RESULT and not a CAUSE of temperature changes.
I'm thinking that people who don't understand the difference between cause and affect, and who can't distinguish between leading and trailing indicators should not be lecturing others about anything.
Al Kelly| 5.19.09 @ 3:18PM
Somebody at the Spectator needs to get David Matthews a real job, life or something. At least limit this guy to one or two regurgitations per day They guy obviously has nothing better to do than sit and spout his liberal dogma, day in and day out, article after article. We have heard his stuff before. He adds nothing to the conversation and is one of those guys who could never be reasoned with...
Michael L. Hauschild| 5.19.09 @ 3:26PM
Excellent post Griff.
Marc Jeric| 5.19.09 @ 3:38PM
Swamps (eh - sorry, I meant wetlands, as our eco-nazis call them) contribute more greenhouse gas, i.e. methane, than all human activities do by producing carbon dioxide.
It is also encouraging to see how this daily.cos creep David reads our stuff every day and so drives him into paranoia of rage and namecalling.
Just keep up with your reading - we intend to drive you to madness in 2010! Join the ACORN brownshirts under the direction of Abu Hussein from Kenya - our Community Organizer-in-Chief!
Freya| 5.19.09 @ 3:41PM
Jerry,
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, therefore it traps heat, therefore it will trap heat if there is more of it.
Your argument is based on the premise that either one causes the other, or the other causes the one. In reality, it's both. Some outside influence starts a warming, then, since CO2 flux is primarily driven by biological activity and ocean thermodynamics, more CO2 is released. In turn, that extra CO2 leads to more warming (a positive feedback effect). Look at any chart of temperature and CO2 change over the past million years or so. Most of the time, the changes in both are concurrent.
In this case, CO2 is being independently of temperature, by the burning of fossil fuels. But however it gets into the atmosphere, it will act the same way.
Check this out, if you want a more detailed explanation,
http://www.grist.org/article/co2-doesnt-lead-it-lags
Marc Jeric| 5.19.09 @ 4:07PM
Another "Republican" who wants the same things as our commie Democrats, just a little bit slower, please. He also genuflects to wind&solar; nonsense.
1) There was first in the 1970's the globaloney cooling scam (see e.g. Newsweek April 28 1975 on the internet); the government-paid scientists (90% of them are rejects of private enterprise) recommended to fight the new ice age by sending our war planes to cover the polar ice with soot in order to increase solar heat and prevent crushing of New York skyscrapers by the new glaciers;
2) When that did not work we had the globaloney warming hoax in the 1990's, proclaimed by mainly the same government-paid scientists (Dr. Hansen of the NOAA, for example); to prevent the massive heating, fires, flooding of coastal cities, disappearance of Florida, California, and Caribbean islands, massive hurricanes, global famine, and other catastrophic events we should nationalize oil and gas and coal and electricity companies; and while we are at it, also automobile, steel, and banks.
3) after 11 years of considerable cooling we are now faced with the climate change flimflam where whatever happens with our climate we should nationalize oil and gas and coal and electricity companies; and why not our banks, car companies while we are at it. To prevent this catastrophe the best vehicle presumably is international agreements enforced by the United Nations world government.
As for the influence of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas: on a normal day the atmoshere contains 10,000 ppm (parts per million) of water vapor and about 300 ppm of carbon dioxide. The government-paid scientists say that an increase of 100 ppm of CO2 over the next 50 years will result in a catastrophic warming. The thermal absorptivity of water vapor is 4 times larger than that of carbon dioxide; it follows that the CO2 increase will increase the overall thermal absorptivity of the mixture by about 1/4 of one percent. The production of methane from livestock and the swamps (or as the enviro-nazis call those "wetlands") vastly surpasses the influence of CO2.
There is the Global Warming Petition Project (see Internet) where 31,478 US independent scientists declared that there is no anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming; of these 9,029 are scientists with PhD degrees. Our enviro-nazis tried to sabotage this effort by submiiting phony names with phony degrees - and then claimed the whole effort by the Petition scientists was a fraud. It took us 3 years and a lot of private money to verify the credentials of all the signatories and clean up the Petition of those saboteurs. See also Manhattan Declaration with more such signatories, plus a large number of scientific groups from other countries who state the same.
I am one of these signatories, MS and PhD degrees from UCLA, with majors in thermodynamics and heat & mass transfer.
I think to fight this communist attempt to secure a world government should not be fought on the narrow grounds of more taxes - that is the losing proposition; where about 50% of the population is on some kind of welfare we will always be outvoted. The battle should be fought and won on the firm scientific basis.
SCAM - HOAX - FLIMFLAM!!!
ncatty| 5.19.09 @ 4:43PM
Freya, take a look at Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (2007) 12, 79-90. Peer reviewed and annotated. CO2 is not a problem.
Captain Illini| 5.19.09 @ 5:35PM
Okay...I gotta jump in the pool. Here goes. The SUN warms the earth...not the air. Heat transfer from the ocean and land rises...and cools, thus convection. Big bad things that have happened in history have caused the SUN to not provide as much radiation, so we got cold. The air didn't do this (sort of, but I'm trying to make this simple)...once again, the SUN makes us warm...not CO2, not anything else, and if it decides (like right now) to be less...er...sunny, then guess what folks...it gets....COLDER.
Nick| 5.19.09 @ 6:36PM
Freya,
What exactly is the "ideal" temperature for the planet Earth? When you find an answer please let me know.
In the meantime please visit MichaelChrichton.net and read the late author's speeches. You should find them enlightening.
Vince Klorthow| 5.19.09 @ 7:36PM
Dear Dave Mathews,
God loves you. You seem smart but not very wise. Why do harbor such hate for God's wisdom of the world that all these other bloggers are bestowing on you? What happened to you? God will forgive you!
Freya| 5.19.09 @ 9:26PM
ncatta, I've read it.
Cherry-picked data, and the same re-hashed arguments to tell certain folks what they want to hear.
Freya| 5.19.09 @ 9:28PM
Well, I don't know what the ideal temperature is for Earth or humankind, and I doubt anyone else does either. So don't you think it's a good idea to stop fiddling with the thermostat by building up greenhouse gases?
tonypal| 5.19.09 @ 9:36PM
Vince Klorthow:
Please provide some evidence of David Matthews intellect.
Seriously, don't try playing nice with the guy. He will burn you every time. The guy is a hateful little troll with a very limited understanding of most things. He comes on this site and spews forth the latest bile that he reads on the DailyKos or some similar place. The David Matthews types are not interested in reason or discussion. He will not engage you in a serious debate because he does not possess the intellect to debate. He knows this, so like most ignorant leftists he substitutes anger, resentment and hatred for thoughtful dialogue.
So you might want to ignore him. However, if you must engage him, I suggest you scroll up to my post from earlier today for an example on how to deal with him. I think you will find it effective because it essentially interprets his post from earlier today, the first one on this thread. It lays bare his nonsensical rantings and exposes his worldview for the confused morass that it is.
Nick| 5.19.09 @ 10:48PM
Freya,
Based on what? What if we are at the "ideal" temperature right now? What if we bring about another ice age? Like we can affect the global climate in the first place.
You want to spend trillions of dollars to stop something you don't even know, by your own admission, is a danger. Not very scientific.
Please read the late, great Michael Chrichton.
Nick| 5.19.09 @ 11:33PM
That should be MichaelCrichton.net.
I mispelled it twice, uughhhh!
Nick| 5.20.09 @ 2:54AM
Freya,
The problem you and your fellow members of the church of global warming have is you think there is an "ideal" temperature for the Earth. There is no IDEAL.
We know climate temperatures have fluctuated many times in the distant past. Man didn't cause it. You know what did? This might be hard to comprehend, and a shock, but THE SUN DID!
Lingerie| 9.17.09 @ 9:36PM
sexy lingerie wholesale lingerie