Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Rule. I offered a commonsense amendment to strike the International Climate Change Adaptation program and the allocation of emission allowances to this program. We don't need to establish yet…
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Rule. I offered a commonsense amendment to strike the International Climate Change Adaptation program and the allocation of emission allowances to this program. We don't need to establish yet another foreign assistance program that is not only redundant but will actually hurt American manufacturers.
This legislation calls for the U.S. to transfer to developing nations a portion of America's emission allowances so that these nations can continue to pollute. By giving away additional allowances this legislation will put America's manufacturers at an even worse competitive footing than ever before. This is another incentive to encourage American manufacturers to leave this country.
And, this initiative will not reduce emissions. According to an article in yesterday's Washington Times, David Bookbinder, chief climate counsel to the Sierra Club, said, ``emissions could actually stay the same or increase domestically because companies could choose to buy permits instead of investing in technology to make their operations cleaner.'' I ask unanimous consent to insert the full article into the Record.
Plus, this Rule prohibits a debate on some other commonsense amendments. My fellow Illinoisan, Representative Judy Biggert, had a responsible amendment to strike the federalization of local building codes and replace it with positive incentives to encourage federal, state, and local governments to move towards green building codes. Even the liberal Washington Post editorialized against this provision in the bill. I ask unanimous consent to insert this editorial into the Record. This amendment was defeated 3 to 7 in the Rules Committee last night.
The Rule also prohibits a debate on an amendment offered by Representative David Roe of Tennessee to waive this bill until the U.S. reaches an agreement with China and India on greenhouse gas reductions. Again, this sensible amendment was defeated by a vote of 3 to 7 in the Rules Committee last night. This is atrocious. We are only fooling ourselves if we think we're doing something to save the planet when all we're doing is transferring our manufacturing jobs and our pollution problems to China, India, and other developing nations. This bill will not lower global emissions of greenhouse gasses. The Roe
amendment would have prevented this mistake.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and ``no'' on the final ``cap and tax'' bill.
[From the Washington Times, June 25, 2009]
Climate Bill Gives Billions to Foreign Foliage
(By Amanda DeBard)
If a tree falls in Brazil, it will, in fact, be heard in
the U.S.--at least if a little-noticed provision in the
pending climate-change bill in Congress becomes law.
As part of the far-reaching climate bill, the House is set
to vote Friday on a plan to pay companies billions of dollars
not to chop down trees around the world, as a way to reduce
global warming.
The provision, called ``offsets,'' has been attacked by
both environmentalists and business groups as ineffective and
poorly designed. Critics contend it would send scarce federal
dollars overseas to plant trees when subsidies are needed at
home, while the purported ecological benefits would be
difficult to quantify.
The offsets ``would be a transfer of wealth overseas,''
said William Kovacs, vice president for environmental affairs
at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the official fiscal
scorekeeper on Capitol Hill, has not offered an estimate on
how much the offset plan would cost, but the liberal Center
for American Progress says it will be pricey.
``The international offsets market is not a huge or cheap
market,'' said Joseph Romm, a climate expert at the center.
``By 2020, the U.S. could be spending $4 billion on
international offsets.''
Supporters of the legislation counter that the plan
recognizes the need to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions to
curb global warming--in the United States and beyond.
Supporting ways to keep trees alive or plant new trees,
wherever those trees are located, helps the effort, they say.
Under the program, the government would reward domestic and
international companies that perform approved ``green''
actions with certificates, called permits.
Those companies could, in turn, sell the permits to other
companies that emit greenhouse gases. The permits would be,
in effect, licenses to pollute--and potentially very
valuable.
The heart of the climate plan would require major polluters
to purchase the permits if they want to pollute above a
certain level, controlling overall emissions through a market
that is called ``cap-and-trade.''
Under the provision to be voted on in the House, the
``green'' companies could sell their offset permits to
companies that need them because they are unable to, reduce
their own emissions as fast as the government would like.
But critics from both the political left and right see
problems.
``You have to ask yourself, what is the purpose of this
provision? Because it won't actually reduce emissions,'' said
David Bookbinder, chief climate counsel to the Sierra Club,
the environmental advocacy group.
Mr. Bookbinder said emissions could actually stay the same
or increase domestically because companies could choose to
buy permits instead of invest in technology to make their
operations cleaner.
Kenneth P. Green, a climate specialist at the conservative
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research,
said keeping track of which projects would be eligible for
inclusion is another flaw in the plan.
``Who is responsible if there's a fire that burns down a
[green] project? Will those just be wasted offsets?'' he
asked.
Mr. Green and others say the bill's offset provisions, are
too vague and leave unanswered too many questions about which
projects will qualify for the offsets and how many offsets
would be offered for a given project.
``The key with offsets is ensuring that they
generate`credible' emission reductions,'' said Evan Juska,
North America senior policy manager for the Climate Group,
which advises governments and business how to move to a low-
carbon economy.
Mr. Juska said the bill, as written, ``leaves much of it to
be determined by the administrator after the program is
enacted.''
While tree stands are a large absorber of carbon dioxide
and other greenhouse gases, they may not be the only projects
that qualify for offsets. Companies that erect wind farms,
install solar panels, invest in devices that trap the methane
gas in landfills, use less fertilizer, or upgrade equipment
at their refineries and power plants might also be eligible
for offsets.
The bill would only allow 2 billion tons, or about 30
percent, of carbon-dioxide emissions to be offset a year
through the so-called ``green'' actions.
Half of the qualifying projects must be domestic and half
must be overseas, but the bill includes the option to award
more offsets to international projects if not enough domestic
projects are available.
The CBO projects that the thousands of firms subject to the
cap-and-trade program would utilize 230 million tons of
domestic offsets and 190 million tons of international
offsets in 2012, the year the legislation is proposed to take
effect, instead of reducing their emissions levels.