Link to Inhofe EPW Press Blog
Link to Editorial
TO anyone who'll listen, U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe swears cap-and-trade legislation coveted by
President Obama and liberal Democrats in Congress is as dead as Rover — which is to say, all over.
Read
more:
Jim Inhofe, R-Tulsa, has been predicting cap and trade's doom for months, and nothing has changed his mind. Not even the Gulf oil spill, which the White House believes might rally Americans behind legislation they've panned so far.
During last week's Oval Office speech, Obama used the oil spill to argue America should consume less petroleum and move toward a green-energy future. The president believes cap and trade will encourage reductions in fossil fuel use while lowering carbon dioxide emissions.
Maybe the Gulf spill will ignite public fervor for what essentially would be an energy tax across the breadth of the economy, but we trust Inhofe's instincts - and his ability to count noses in the Senate.
Earlier this month, the Senate narrowly defeated a measure that would have banned the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating carbon without explicit congressional authorization. Though the amendment failed, the vote was significant because six Democrats voted with Republicans - suggesting cap and trade is nowhere near the 60 votes needed to advance. Just like Inhofe says.
Part of cap and trade's problem is its rhetoric about helping to end U.S. addiction to fossil fuels while spawning a new era of clean energy. It's neither feasible nor believable.
As columnist Robert J. Samuelson writes in The Washington Post, oil, natural gas and coal account for about 85 percent of America's energy. Green-energy measures would "dampen" fossil fuel use, Samuelson writes, but the savings would be offset by population and economic growth. "Although wind, solar and biomass are assumed to grow as much as 10 times faster than overall energy use, they provide only 11 percent of supply in 2035, up from 5 percent in 2008," he writes.
Continuing to tell Americans that green energy will magically transport them away from the need for oil - and the risk of oil spills offshore - is "intellectually shallow," Samuelson writes. "Clean energy won't displace oil or achieve huge reductions in greenhouse gas emissions - for example, the 83 percent cut by 2050 from 2005 levels included in last year's House climate change legislation. Barring major technological advances (say, low-cost 'carbon capture' to pump CO2 into the ground) or an implausibly massive shift to nuclear power, this simply won't happen. It's a pipe dream."
So is the notion that oil spill-weary Americans are eager for higher taxes, hampered economic output and lower standards of living resulting from cap and trade. Which is what Jim Inhofe has been saying all along.
