President Barack Obama plans to announce in next year’s State of the Union address that he wants to focus extensively on cutting the federal deficit in 2010 – and will downplay other new domestic spending beyond jobs programs, according to top aides involved in the planning. The president’s plan, which the officials said was under discussion before this month’s Democratic election setbacks, represents both a practical and a political calculation by this White House.

As Andrew Sullivan wrote, “this classic Politico piece — in as much as it regurgitates almost comically process-oriented Beltway wisdom — fails to mention a few things about Obama’s spending in his first year,” including: the recession, that health care reform is paid for, and that “there’s a big big difference between spending on green and infrastructure investment and slashing taxes or increasing Medicare entitlements.” Chris Hayes added “there’s one big maddening conceptual error at the heart of this piece…which is to confuse relatively substantial pieces of domestic legislation with a spending ‘binge.’”

But if true, what does the administration mean by “focus extensively” on deficits next year? And what will that entail for the domestic agenda? I certainly hope that no one is thinking of making a 1937-style haul back on recovery efforts. Judging by the public statements of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag, they aren’t, but if the administration is quaking over the political ramifications of the deficit now, how long until they head in that direction?

This week, we’ve already seen a group of senators threaten to force the U.S. to default on its debt (by refusing to increase the federal debt ceiling), if they don’t get a bi-partisan commission that will be tasked with cutting Social Security and Medicare. This deficit-mania comes despite a stubbornly weak labor market, and at the same time that Congress is insisting that more must be done in terms of job creation.

Of course, there’s nothing wrong with wringing waste from the system, and there are surely some ineffective or duplicative programs in the various federal agencies that can afford to go by the wayside. And if that’s what the administration means, more power to them.

But as Paul Krugman wrote, “conventional wisdom in Washington seems to have congealed around the view that budget deficits preclude any further fiscal stimulus — a view that’s all wrong on the economics, but that doesn’t seem to matter.” It’d be a shame to see the administration turn this particular bit of conventional wisdom into policy that doesn’t provide more support to the job market, and at worst, could choke off economic recovery.

The filibuster is so undemocratic it just defies defense. Particularly, as you said, it used to be this once-in-a-generation regional conflict issue that’s meant to protect the regions that has now prevented majority rule in this country. It’s a huge, insidious problem. I have to tell you in my conversations with senators, including in our party, I’ve gotten nowhere on this issue. When they get into that fine institution, they kind of like the idea one person can stop the entire country dead on its heels to keep a post office open in Schmuckbucket or wherever. I have to tell you, I’m very frustrated by it.

Watch it:

Inslee later warned that the “Exxons of the world” are going to “strangle this [effort] in its crib” with their millions of dollars if climate and clean energy activists don’t start fighting. Speakers at this and other Netroots Nation panels on climate legislation and clean energy reform discussed how conservative Democrats who fear clean energy reform hold the balance of power in the Senate. Last year, conservative Democrats such as Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) filibustered the Lieberman-Warner climate legislation, protecting local coal and oil interests. This year, armed with the filibuster, these senators hold the fate of the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act in their hands.

The electric utility industry has been one of Congress’s top campaign contributers for years. Already in the still young 2009-2010 election cycle, it has contributed $2.4 million to congressional campaigns. During the 2007-2008 election cycle, when the Senate rejected the Lieberman-Warner climate bill, the industry gave $20.6 million.

As the Senate debate ramps up, the top ten Senate recipients of electric utility contributions so far this cycle have staked out positions on the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act that range from skepticism to virulent opposition.

Byron Dorgan (D-ND): $70,200

Dorgan, a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, is the top recipient of campaign cash connected to electric utilities so far in the 2010 election cycle. He’s leery of the cap-and-trade approach, and he sees a future still powered by fossil fuels. His home state happens to have vast coal reserves. Dorgan wrote in a recent opinion article in the Bismarck Tribune that to protect the environment and make the nation less dependent on foreign oil, the U.S. should:

Establish caps on carbon that are accompanied by both adequate research and development funding and reasonable time lines for implementation to develop and commercialize technologies that will greatly reduce the CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.

Lisa Murkowski (R-AK): $60,000

Murkowski is the ranking Republican on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. She criticized ACES for not promoting nuclear and oil and gas development. When her committee took up its own energy bill earlier this year, she pushed for a lower renewable energy standard of 15 percent by 2021, opening the Florida coast to oil drilling, creating a green bank that could heavily benefit nuclear development, and providing ample funding to Alaska’s natural gas pipeline project.

Richard Burr (R-NC): $55,449

Burr, a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, believes in an “all options on the table” approach. He supports energy efficiency and renewable energy development, as well as continued oil exploration. He also believes nuclear “can and must be part of the energy solution if our country wants to achieve meaningful reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.”

Evan Bayh (D-IN): $42,550

Bayh is also a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Indiana is a manufacturing state that relies almost entirely on coal for electricity. Bayh opposed even a low 15 percent Renewable Electricity Standard, and he opposed cap-and-trade last year, saying he wanted to protect consumers.

Charles Grassley (R-IA): $25,000

Grassley is a member of the Senate Finance Committee that will work out the details of emissions allocations. He says he would have voted against the House version of ACES. Grassley’s state is No. 2 in wind power, but he worries about higher energy prices for farmers, and he is skeptical of the trade part of a cap-and-trade program being gamed by Wall Street. He also worries about international competition: “It’s going to be very detrimental to the economy of the United States if we pass a bill an the other counties of the world don’t follow along – and I have my doubts if they will follow along.”

Blanche Lincoln (D-AR): $22,850

Lincoln is a member of the Senate’s Energy and Natural Resources Committee, as well as its Agriculture and Finance committees. She supports offshore drilling, has pushed to reduce any national renewable energy standard, and has called the House version of the energy bill “a complete non-starter”.

Arlen Specter (D-PA): $22,499

Specter, who recently switched his party affiliation, is a member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and comes from a coal-producing state. In the second sentence of his home page’s energy discussion he writes: “Pennsylvania’s strong agricultural, manufacturing and other industrial sectors rely heavily on energy production, and Pennsylvania consumers deserve reliable, affordable energy.” However, he also has supported up to a 20 percent renewable energy standard.

Richard Shelby (R-AL): $20,650

Shelby summed up his opinion of the cap-and-trade policy this way: “That would be the biggest tax you have ever seen.” To cut U.S. reliance on foreign oil, he stands behind the GOP’s all-of-the-above policy, including more drilling offshore and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

David Vitter (R-LA): $19,499

Vitter, a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee that is spearheading the climate bill in the Senate, is vehemently against putting a price on carbon emissions. He argues that it would “have a profoundly negative impact on Louisiana’s economy in particular, bringing about significant job loss and increased energy prices – neither of which we need in these trying economic times." Vitter was tied for dead last on the Republicans for Environmental Protection’s 2008 Senate Scorecard.

Robert Bennett (R-UT): $18,500

Bennett, a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, believes global warming is a serious issue, but says he worries about the cost of regulation to his constituents.

The top ten Senate recipients of electric utilities-related campaign cash since 1990 who are still in the chamber are:

1. John McCain (R-AZ) $709,391
2. George Voinovich (R-OH), $570,726
3. Mary Landrieu (D-LA), $525,590
4. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), $515,177
5. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), $494,594
6. Max Baucus (D-MT, Finance Committee Chairman), $473,143
7. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM, Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman) $464,909
8. Arlen Specter (D-PA), $452,996
9. James Inhofe (R-OK) $435,967
10. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), $365,000.

Harder oversight on coal plants,

Better renewable portfolio standard and investments in international adaptation,

Faster emissions reduction targets, and

Stronger leadership and a stronger bill.

Avaaz Action Factory activists showed up at Tuesday’s Environment and Public Works hearing in strongmen costumes and t-shirts emblazoned with the “Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger” message, encouraging senators to “flex their own legislative muscles.” Today at 12:30 pm, in concert with the Campus Progress Lobby Day, hundreds of activists will be converging on the Upper Senate Lawn at Constitution and Delaware, NE to again shout out the Daft Punk-inspired call.

– “This bill is still going to wreak havoc with the manufacturing sector in some parts of the country.”

– “The Senate, for example, is not considering cap and trade. The cap and trade provisions are the ones that frankly would damage the manufacturing sector short term and have a lot of other unpredictable consequences on our economy.”

— “When we’re in the midst of a deep recession, we need to make sure we’re not making a dramatic change that could cost us jobs in the short term, because many states simply can’t afford to lose more jobs.”

– “This is the wrong time for cap and trade, this is the wrong time to impose a renewable electricity standard on the Southeast.”

Watch it:

Davis is wrong. In fact, the Senate is continuing to work on cap-and-trade legislation for passage this fall. Furthermore, Davis seems not to understand that states like Alabama need the clean-energy economy to recover from the Bush-Exxon recession.

A Clean-Energy Economy Will Create 29,000 Jobs In Alabama. The Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454), the EPA found, will “create strong demand for a domestic manufacturing market for these next generation technologies that will enable American workers to serve in a central role in our clean energy transformation” and “play a critical role in the American economic recovery and job growth.” A report from the Center for American Progress and the Political Economy Research Institute “finds that Alabama could see a net increase of about $2.2 billion in investment revenue and 29,000 jobs based on its share of a total of $150 billion in clean-energy investments annually across the country. This is even after assuming a reduction in fossil fuel spending equivalent to the increase in clean-energy investments. [EPA, 4/20/09; PERI, 6/18/09]

Waxman-Markey Directs Billions Of Dollars To Energy-Intensive Manufacturing. The Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454) includes cost containment provisions, allowances for worker assistance and training, investments in clean energy technologies, a new clean energy deployment agency, and billions of dollars in direct assistance to trade-vulnerable and other industries. [Committee on Energy and Commerce, 6/9/09]

A Renewable Electricity Standard Would Reduce Costs In Alabama. The Energy Information Administration projects that a renewable electricity standard of 25 percent by 2025 — much stronger than the one in the Waxman-Markey legislation — would drive electricity costs down by more than 10 percent in Alabama and throughout the Southeast, as utilities move away from increasingly expensive coal to renewable biomass. [EIA, 4/09]

Alabama Is Especially Susceptible To Global Warming Damages. As a coastal state, Alabama is highly vulnerable to the devastation of hurricanes, which will increase in intensity as the oceans warm and sea levels rise. Rainfall is expected to decrease, increasing the rate of devastating droughts like that of 2007. By the end of the century, Alabama will have deadly heat waves over 90 degrees for more than four months every year. [U.S. Global Change Program, 2009]

Davis claims to support clean energy reform, but he opposes any effort to limit the carbon pollution responsible for global warming. Like the House Republicans, Davis is in denial.

1. H. Res. 587: Adoption of the rule to set the terms of debate, officially three hours in total.

2. H.R. 2998: Adoption of the Waxman amendment in the nature of the substitute.

3. H.R. 513: Adoption of J. Randy Forbes (R-VA) substitute, the New Manhattan Project for Energy Independence.

4. Motion to recommit.

5. Final passage.

The final version of the Waxman-Markey act includes a mixed bag of changes. Weakening amendments include Rep. Collin Peterson’s (D-MN) concessions on behalf of Big Ag. In exchange for a restriction of the Building Energy Performance Labeling Program on behalf of the National Association of Realtors, Rep. Ed Perlmutter’s (D-CO) beneficial GREEN Act to spur energy-efficient homes will be adopted. Waxman included several other beneficial changes, including the Inslee (WA)-Markey (CO) clean-grid legislation, several critical green jobs amendments, and the Titus (NV)-Giffords (AZ)-Heinrich (NM) renewable energy standard for Federal agencies.

Below is a summary of the Waxman amendment, broken down by its the component amendments:

– Waxman (CA): Makes changes to accommodate States that utilize a central purchasing model for its renewable electricity standard, and makes additional changes.

– Inslee (WA) / Markey (CO): Provides FERC with sitting authority for the construction of certain high-priority interstate transmission lines constructed in the Western Interconnection and amends the National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors.

– Peterson (MN): Requires the Agriculture Secretary to establish a list of types of domestic agricultural and forestry practices that result in reductions or avoidance of greenhouse gas emissions, exempts the agriculture and forestry sectors from the bill’s emission caps, redefines “biomass,” and grandfathers existing biodiesel plants to exempt them from lifecycle analysis under the RFS.

– Polis (CO): Permits states to convey allowances in a SEED account directly to renewable energy generators.

– Kratovil (MD): Requires the Agriculture Secretary to establish a carbon incentives program to achieve supplemental greenhouse gas emissions reductions on private agricultural and forestland.

– Titus (NV)/ Giffords (AZ)/ Heinrich (NM): Establishes a Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) for Federal agencies, and provides Federal agencies with the authority to enter into renewable energy power purchase agreements for up to 20 years.

– Boren (OK)/ Larson (CT)/ Sullivan (OK): Makes natural gas fueled vehicles eligible for clean vehicle incentives, the vehicle integration program, and the manufacturing incentives for alternatively fueled vehicles.

- Cardoza (CA): Limits the cost of a permit for a license for the construction of a solar energy system, and provides that noncompliance with permit cost requirements disqualifies the entity from Community Development Block Grants.

– Halvorson (IL): Authorizes a national education and awareness program for the purpose of informing building, facility, and industrial plant owners and managers and decision makers, government leaders, and industry leaders about the large energy-saving potential of greater use of mechanical insulation and other benefits.

– Hinchey (NY): Amends the definition of a “cluster,” as it applies to Energy Innovation Hub, and ensures that virtual connections qualify when defining a cluster.

– Loebsack (IA): Amends the Retrofit for Energy and Environmental Performance (REEP) program to provide that funds provided to disaster victims through the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act may qualify as the building owners’ contribution toward the matching requirements of the REEP program, requires the Federal agencies administering assistance to disaster victims through the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act shall provide information to disaster victims on the REEP program, and provides 10 percent of funding under the REEP program for retrofits of public and assisted housing.

– Moore (KS): Creates a Community Building Code Administration Grant program, providing $100 million over five years in competitive, matching grants for local building code enforcement.

– Perlmutter (CO): Limits the Building Energy Performance Labeling Program in sec. 204 of the bill to new construction only.

– Perlmutter (CO): Provides incentives to lenders and financial institutions to provide lower interest loans and other benefits to consumers who build, buy, or remodel homes and businesses to improve their energy efficiency.

– Cardoza (CA): Directs HUD to issue rules to prohibit private covenants that restrict or prohibit the installation of solar energy systems.

– Holt (NJ) / DeLauro (CT) / Baldwin (WI) / Baird (WA): Authorizes the Energy Secretary to develop a research program to study the factors affecting whether consumers adopt energy conservation practices or make energy efficiency improvements.

– Sestak (PA): Requires the Energy Secretary to report to Congress on a study on the use of thorium-fueled nuclear reactors for national energy needs, including a response to the IAEA study entitled “Thorium fuel cycle – Potential benefits and challenges.”

– Polis (CO): Establishes a clean energy career training clearinghouse to aid institutions with Federal resources, expertise, information and points of contact in establishing and maintaining quality training programs.

– Jackson-Lee (TX): Adds provision seeking to ensure that minority-owned and women-owned businesses can benefit from grants aimed at stimulating business development, and requires the Labor Secretary to monitor the potential growth of impacted and displaced workers to ensure that the necessary funding continues to support the number of workers affected.

– Larsen (WA): Expresses the senses of Congress that the United States should work with the International Civil Aviation Organization.

We think that they ought to at least be able to evaluate indirect land use, but I’m still thinking about this one,” he said, noting he had just learned about it.

This is the same biofuel-industry loophole for which Agriculture Committee chair Collin Peterson (D-MN) has been holding up comprehensive climate and clean energy legislation. By replacing petroleum, biofuels have the potential to dramatically reduce global warming pollution. But scientists have found biofuels can also worsen global warming by encouraging farmers to cut down the diversity-rich tropical forests that soak up carbon dioxide. It is critical that the federal government’s mandate for billions of gallons of ethanol production be coupled with regulations that take into account the science of indirect land use change.

Dicks, an environmental champion, should know this.

Rep. Diane DeGette’s (D-CO) attempt to regulate fracking — underground hydraulic fracturing for natural gas extraction — is under attack by a multimillion-dollar lobbying and public-relations campaign from the oil and gas industry. Led by the American Petroleum Institute and the Independent Petroleum Association of America, dozens of industry organizations established the Energy in Depth front group to denounce fracking legislation as an “unnecessary financial burden on a single small-business industry, American oil and natural gas producers.” The Energy in Depth blog personally attacks DeGette as being “squarely focused” on ending this “critical energy-producing practice”:

Consistent with her legislation in the 110th Congress, DeGette remains squarely focused on stripping states – who have a 60-year record of ensuring hydraulic fracturing is done safely and effectively – of their regulatory authority and enacting a one-size-fits-all federal mandate that could effectively halt this critical energy-producing practice at a time when our economy, working families, and state and local governments desperately need the boost.

The “multimillion-dollar lobbying and public-relations campaign to defend the practice” of fracking includes a website, Twitter feed, Facebook group, YouTube channel, an “aggressive ad campaign” on the Drudge Report.

Fracking, which was developed in the 1950s by Dick Cheney’s Halliburton, involves “injecting a million gallons or more of water and chemicals deep underground to pry out gas that’s locked away in tight spaces,” contaminating groundwater with toxic chemicals. A 2008 hydrogeologic study in Garfield County in Colorado, where fracking is extensively used, found evidence of methane and chlorine contamination of groundwater supplies. Under the Bush administration, fracking was exempted from the Safe Drinking Water Act by the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

Furthermore, the fracking fluids — industrial solvents including known carcinogens and endocrine disrupters such as diesel fuel, and benzene — are largely unregulated. Even after a Colorado nurse nearly died from exposure to fracking chemicals in 2008, industry officials continue to argue that their toxic formulas must be kept secret. In recent testimony, a Halliburton executive compared the chemicals which cause “heart, lung, and liver failure, plus kidney damage and blurred vision” to secret flavorings:

It is much like asking Coca-Cola to disclose the formula of Coke.

The Fracking Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act has been introduced in both chambers of Congress to close these loopholes, restoring Safe Drinking Water Act oversight and requiring that companies disclose to U.S. EPA or state agencies the specific chemicals that are injected into the ground to extract gas supplies. The sponsor of the Senate bill is Sen. Robert Casey Jr. (D-PA), while the House bill is sponsored by Reps. Diana DeGette (D-CO), Jared Polis (D-CO), and Maurice Hinchey (D-NY). “We’re not opposed to gas drilling,” Congressman Hinchey has explained. “We just want it to be done in a way that is not going to injure other people, not going to damage their property, not going to contaminate their water supply.”

The intent of the FRAC Act is to protect the public through healthy drinking water standards and greater public awareness. It would reduce some of the problems currently resulting from the unregulated use of the procedure while continuing to allow its use for production of oil and natural gas. If the technology truly has “an exemplary safety record,” as industry representatives claim, then they should have nothing to fear from a law that calls for greater disclosure and the protection of public safety.

Intern Erica Goad contributed to this post.

Conservative Democrats in the 50-member Blue Dog Coalition are poised to block or weaken critical green economy legislation as it moves to the House floor. The Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454) was approved by Rep. Henry Waxman’s (D-CA) energy committee after Blue Dogs and other “brown” Democrats successfully lightened the bill’s clean energy standards and funneled hundreds of billions of dollars to polluting industry. Blue Dog Collin Peterson (D-MN), chair of the Agriculture Committee, has threatened to block the bill if his demands on behalf of industrial agriculture are not met:

At some point it could become an issue where the leadership has to deal with these issues in order to get enough votes to pass it. But if they don’t want to change it, they’ll have to find the votes some other place. In my district, a ‘no’ vote would be a good vote.

Peterson has claimed he has “40 to 45 votes” against the legislation. Fellow Blue Dog and agriculture committee member Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) warned, “I don’t think he is bluffing. He has got the support he says he has.” In a remarkable coincidence, it would take 39 Democrats to thwart the legislation, as Democrats hold a 78-seat majority in the House.

Grist’s Jonathan Hiskes draws from an empirical analysis of polluter influence on Congress to identify nine key conservative Democrats at the center of the ideological spectrum on climate issues, seven of whom are Blue Dogs:

Let’s call them the Carbon Nine: Jason Altmire (Pennsylvania), Rick Boucher (Virginia), Artur Davis (Alabama), Baron Hill (Indiana), Charlie Melancon (Louisiana), Earl Pomeroy (North Dakota), Mike Ross (Arkansas), John Tanner (Tennessee), and Gene Taylor (Mississippi).

Of the four members who sit on the energy committee, Hill and Boucher voted in favor of the bill and Melancon and Ross voted against. All four Democrats voting against Waxman-Markey — Melancon, Ross, Jim Matheson (D-UT) and John Barrow (D-GA) — are Blue Dogs.

Hiskes drew his “Carbon Nine” from a draft paper by UCLA Institute of the Environment’s Matthew Kahn and the Brattle Group’s Michael Cragg, “Carbon Geography: The Political Economy of Congressional Support for Legislation Intended to Mitigate Greenhouse Gas Production.” The economists also found that ideology and pollution are strongly linked:

– A one standard deviation increase in a county’s representative’s conservative ideology is associated with a five percent increase in county carbon emissions.

– The average Republican in Congress represents a district whose carbon emissions are 14 percent higher than the average Democrat in Congress.

– The average Republican member of the Energy and Commerce Committee represents a district whose carbon emissions are 21 percent higher than the average Democrat on this committee.

The study reveals why Waxman skipped over the House Energy and Environment Subcommittee chaired by Rep. Ed Markey to markup their bill in full committee: The average Democrat on the subcommittee “represents a district whose per-capita carbon emissions are 31 percent higher than the average Democrat in Congress.”

During the markup of the Waxman-Markey clean energy economy legislation (H.R. 2454) on Wednesday, I offered an amendment to improve energy efficiency by encouraging the planting of shade trees to fight global warming, save electricity, and clean the air. My amendment was challenged by Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), who mentioned that her mother, a long-time garden club member, “received the Keep America Beautiful lifetime achievement award in 1997 for the work that she has done.” The gentlelady from Tennessee asked me whether my program would hurt not-for-profit organizations in the name of fighting global warming:

So, in addition to the U.S. Forest Service carrying out some of this good work, we have garden clubs all around the country. We have Boy Scout and Girl Scout clubs that work on Arbor Days, planting trees. So is it the gentlelady’s intent that all of these organizations will be able to draw down this one-dollar-for-dollar match? Would they use that to grow their programs or would this have the unintended consequence of doing away with the corporate contributions that they receive, the charitable contributions they receive in order to help carry out those programs?

Watch it:

In reality, my amendment establishes a competitive matching grant program for retail power providers to support new and existing tree-planting programs by non-profit organizations — like garden clubs, the Boy Scouts, and Keep America Beautiful. Matching grant programs, which require that federal monies be matched dollar-for-dollar by private donations, actually encourage charitable corporate contributions. I expressed to my colleagues that Congress should set standards for the utilities to ensure the money is well spent and energy efficiency is prioritized.

Rep. Blackburn further argued that this amendment would start “diminishing the work they have done while we say global warming and fighting global warming and paying umbrage to global warming is the objective of the legislation we’re bringing forward.” Fighting what the Garden Club of America calls the “serious reality of global warming” requires everyone to work together – from members of Congress to members of 4-H. Which is why the Garden Club supports “federal, state and local legislation as well as individual initiatives to control greenhouse gases,” and why I offered this amendment.

I believe my fellow California Democrat, committee chair Henry Waxman put it best when he explained to Rep. Blackburn:

I would be interested in whether you think that faith-based initiatives have harmed the religious and volunteer groups that were doing great things in the community, running drug abuse programs, and other things that — where they served a very worthwhile purpose and the government wanted them — to have them do the work and that set of government agencies to do it. So I show you a different aspect of it. I hear what you’re saying and I wouldn’t want those nonprofit groups to be pushed out of the way at all. But I think this would expand it. We would have more opportunities for people to do things together.

The legislation we passed out of the Energy and Commerce Committee Thursday night is an achievement for the American people, our planet, and for future generations. Once this legislation is signed into law, our children and grandchildren will live in a country that is more sustainable, more economically viable, and more efficient than the country we live in today. And for my hometown of Sacramento, this bill is more than an achievement; it is a necessity.

I’m proud to support President Obama’s challenge to all Americans to work together to repower America and save our planet. Big problems require big solutions, but this one can start with the simple planting of additional trees in our communities.

Transcript:

BLACKBURN: I do have a couple of questions I would like to ask Miss Matsui, if I may do so, on her amendment. I find the amendment such an interesting take on — um — and I do — do look at this and see it as being very duplicative and redundant in its efforts. You know, I come from a family that has always participated enormously in conservation efforts, whether it was Farm Bureau 4-H Club or my mother with Garden Clubs of America. My mother received the Keep America Beautiful lifetime achievement award in 1997 for the work that she has done, starting programs like the gentlelady from California is mentioning in her bill. Now, we have wonderful not-for-profits that go about this work and she does reference them in her bill.

But these organizations, for decades have been planting trees. So, in addition to the U.S. Forest Service carrying out some of this good work, we have garden clubs all around the country. We have Boy Scout and Girl Scout clubs that work on Arbor Days, planting trees. So is it the gentlelady’s intent that all of these organizations will be able to draw down this one-dollar-for-dollar match. Would they use that to grow their programs or would this have the unintended consequence of doing away with the corporate contributions that they receive, the charitable contributions they receive in order to help carry out those programs? Have we thought through what that would do to these not-for-profits who have for decades been engaged in this type of work? And I yield to the gentlelady for a response.

MATSUI: Yes, I’d like to respond. first of all, I really appreciate garden clubs also. And I think they really fill a wonderful place in our communities. The critical difference between my amendment and things like garden clubs, and the reason we need the amendment, is because utilities need to plant the right tree in the right place in order to get the kind of —

BLACKBURN: Reclaiming my time. So then the individuals that put a lot of work into these efforts, our assumption, the arrogance of an assumption by us in Congress would be that these volunteers do not plant the trees in the right place. And I just would have a tremendous amount of concern about what this would do to these organizations that put effort into carrying forth these programs, even begin these programs.

WAXMAN: Would the gentlelady yield?

BLACKBURN: Yes, I’ll be happy to yield.

WAXMAN: I would think those groups would welcome this proposal. It is a voluntary one, it is not mandatory. They’re doing the best job they can and I’m pleased to hear about your mother’s involvement in it. They do a great service. They make our communities more livable. What this proposal would do is no mandate, but an option for local utility companies who want to reduce consumer energy bills, they can do it through tree planting. You got shade from trees, less electricity is used, so if a utility wants to do that, as I understand it, they have to match the money, and they know that they’re helping their ratepayers save money. So I think groups, volunteer groups are great and they’re doing the best they can but this would help and I think utilities would probably want to engage them in the activity.

BLACKBURN: I thank the chairman for the explanation and I reclaim my time. I think that as we look at taking a program that has been very successful in the not-for-profit sector and pulling that in, institutionalizing it and making it a government program that we need to be very careful about how we go about that. I would think that we would not want to take steps that are going to hurt the not-for-profit sector and their good work, diminishing the work they have done while we say global warming and fighting global warming and paying umbrage to global warming is the objective of the legislation we’re bringing forward.

WAXMAN: Would the gentle lady yield —

BLACKBURN: I yield back the balance of my time.

WAXMAN: The chair will recognize himself. I would be interested in whether you think that faith-based initiatives have harmed the religious and volunteer groups that were doing great things in the community, running drug abuse programs, and other things that — where they served a very worthwhile purpose and the government wanted them — to have them do the work and that set of government agencies to do it. So I show you a different aspect of it. I hear what you’re saying and I wouldn’t want those nonprofit groups to be pushed out of the way at all. But I think this would expand it. We would have more opportunities for people to do things together. I hope we — I just want to give you a different explanation.

The Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy Security Act has been corrupted with weakened targets and incredibly large bailouts of the fossil fuel industry, because of the overwhelming influence of polluting corporations on the political process. As Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA) explained during the markup on Wednesday, the history of US policy is to give “huge subsidies” to the coal and nuclear industry, and this bill is no exception:

So in talking about socialism, if, if you look at what the nuclear industry has received from this committee, what the coal industry in terms of subsidies has received from this committee, oil industry received in benefits from this committee, it so dwarfs the benefits that we have or even remotely intend to provide for these nascent renewable energy sources. The truth is, this entire bill is a clean energy bill. We have in huge subsidies for clean coal. Huge. Much more than we have in for renewables. . . .

But, please understand that it is a balanced bill. Nuclear, coal, oil, gas, all of these renewables, all part of the mix, including new hydro. Okay. All of it. And I just beg you to give these new renewable energy technologies a chance to play their role as well.

Watch it:

The policymakers in Washington have been barraged by corporate polluters, from the right-wing fossil fuel extremists — Koch, Peabody, Massey, Exxon, Southern Co. — to the centrist right — BP, Duke Energy, Caterpillar, Dupont — to the capitalist internationals — GE, Shell, Nike. The corporations are expressing their interests through dozens of front groups and PR firms, decades of campaign contributions to key members, hundreds of millions of dollars worth of ads, and thousands of lobbyists.

Not surprisingly, the four Democrats who voted against passage of the weakened Waxman-Markey legislation — Charlie Melancon (D-LA), Barrow (D-GA), Jim Matheson (D-UT), and Mike Ross (D-AR) — are high on the polluter cash rolls. In fact, all but Ross have received over $400K in pollution contributions.

Carbon-sector contributions to members of the House Committee on Energy & Commerce. Click to enlarge (PDF).

However, this raw expression of corporate political power is also their weakness. The effort to pass clean energy reform tells a compelling story about how corporations shape our nation’s politics. The stakes are so high that corporations are taking a much, much more active role than they usually do, so they’re highly exposed. They’re fighting with their trade groups and their lapdog politicians. It’s time for activists to get the message out that if people don’t get involved, it will be up to corporations to determine our clean energy destiny, for good or evil.

Transcript:

MARKEY: So — and let’s go back over the years, over the years the nuclear industry has received $145 billion worth of federal subsidies, combined the solar and wind industry as received $5 billion. So in talking about socialism, if, if you look at what the nuclear industry has received from this committee, what the coal industry in terms of subsidies has received from this committee, oil industry received in benefits from this committee, it so dwarfs the benefits that we have or even remotely intend to provide for these nascent renewable energy sources.

The truth is, this entire bill is a clean energy bill. We have in huge subsidies for clean coal. Huge. Much more than we have in for renewables. We already have all of these nuclear programs as well. No one is saying that any of these technologies are going to be excluded. All we’re saying is that over this area, and it is an exhaustive list. Again, it is wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, biogas, hydro power, marine and hydro kinetic renewable energy, fuel cells, land fill gas, waste water treatment gas, coal-mine methane, qualified waste energy, animal waste, algae, all of this, a triple credit for distributed generation.

Q: Will the gentleman yield?

MARKEY: Let me finish. All of this offers a real potential for job creation and innovation in our country. And the production of new technologies that we can export overseas. The nuclear industry, however, as they look at this bill, these largest of all nuclear utilities in the country, are saying, “We support the bill.” And as John Rowe is saying from Exelon, specifically saying that the renewable electricity standard is something that he supports. So I know what you’re trying to do. But, please understand that it is a balanced bill. Nuclear, coal, oil, gas, all of these renewables, all part of the mix, including new hydro. Okay. All of it. And I just beg you to give these new renewable energy technologies a chance to play their role as well.

Let’s go to the bill and look at the penalties. Because there are actually civil penalties in this bill. We’re actually creating a global warming police. . . And then further to page 236: “Each day of unlawful occupancy shall be considered a separate violation.” We’re setting up a global warming Gestapo that can literally come in and now this new term, “unlawful occupancy.” Now living in your home is considered unlawful under this bill.

This is ludicrous.

Watch it:

Putting aside Scalise’s inflammatory rhetoric, his understanding of the provision — which would save working families and businesses millions of dollars, create hundreds of thousands of green jobs, and tackle the nation’s biggest source of global warming pollution — is flawed. Scalise ignored the difference between energy efficiency building codes and safety codes. Scalise was also seemly ignorant that the legislation explicitly preserves local building codes that meet or exceed the national standard, while providing federal support for states to implement new standards. Federal enforcement would only take place if states failed to act.

Without irony, Scalise argued that fighting global warming would threaten the health and safety of Lousianans in danger of “hurricanes and flooding” and tornadoes:

Safety and health have always been the main driving factors behind a building code. What this bill does in Section 201, it’s literally taking global warming, and using global warming to trump safety and health. Because now, if I’m in South Louisiana, and I want to rebuild after hurricane damage — which by the way we had 120,000 homes in Louisiana that had more than 50 percent damage due to Hurricane Katrina — under this bill in section 201, when people are rebuilding those 120,000 homes, they would have to follow the federal building code, and in many cases that would mean they can’t use the same types of strength that they might want to use in their windows. They might want to use stronger windows because they don’t want the storm to blow out their windows. But under this bill, a federal standard could say their windows are out of the federal code.

Global warming likely significantly intensified the devastating power of Hurricane Katrina. As the state of Louisana itself has explained, “Coastal Lousiana is more vulnerable to the effects of global climate change than any other region in the United States. Its low elevation, high rate of subsidence and rapid loss of wetlands expose this area to the worst consequences of climatic change — a rising Gulf, possibly stronger storms, unpredictable rainfall and warmer weather.”

Full transcript:

SCALISE: Section 201 of this cap and trade energy tax creates a national building code, something that we don’t have in place today. If you look across the country right now, 30 states have their own state building codes. A number of states actually go even to the local level where they have codes that are based on different cities or different parishes or counties.

Just to use Louisiana, for an example, right after Hurricane Katrina, we — our legislature passed a statewide building code. We didn’t have one before. We created a statewide building code, and we took into account in our code the various segmented differences between regions of our state. In fact, the code is different in South Louisiana where our main threats are hurricanes and flooding, much different than they are in the northern part of the state of Louisiana, where tornados are a bigger threat.

And so if you look at the fact that thirty states have these types of statewide codes, this bill in section 201 creates a federal code that would trump, throw out all of those state building codes that have been worked on for years in many cases. We worked on ours for months, just for our state’s code. Here, with really no debate, we’re creating a federal code that trumps all of the states’ codes and in some cases would actually lower the standards that states have for building.

And if you go back to why we have building codes and why states have done this, the purpose typically is to protect safety and health. Safety and health have always been the main driving factors behind a building code. What this bill does in Section 201, it’s literally taking global warming, and using global warming to trump safety and health. Because now, if I’m in South Louisiana, and I want to rebuild after hurricane damage — which by the way we had 120,000 homes in Louisiana that had more than 50 percent damage due to Hurricane Katrina — under this bill in section 201, when people are rebuilding those 120,000 homes, they would have to follow the federal building code, and in many cases that would mean they can’t use the same types of strength that they might want to use in their windows. They might want to use stronger windows because they don’t want the storm to blow out their windows. But under this bill, a federal standard could say their windows are out of the federal code.

And then what does that mean? Let’s go to the bill and look at the penalties. Because there are actually civil penalties in this bill. We’re actually creating a global warming police. To page 235: “The Secretary may set and collect reasonable inspection fees to cover the costs of inspections required.” So number one, they can come in, the federal government can come in and inspect your house and send you the bill. And if they find that you’re out of compliance with this new federal code, “The Secretary shall assess a civil penalty for violations of this section.” And then further to page 236: “Each day of unlawful occupancy shall be considered a separate violation.” We’re setting up a global warming Gestapo that can literally come in and now this new term, “unlawful occupancy.” Now living in your home is considered unlawful under this bill.

This is ludicrous.

If you go — first of all, let’s go to the U.S. Constitution and look at the tenth amendment. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to states respectively or to the people.” The tenth amendment of the U.S. Constitution says the states have the right to do what they’re doing if they’re not prohibited by the Constitution. so states have established building codes. This bill comes in and basically says throw out the tenth amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the federal government’s gonna throw out your building code.

I would like to submit the U.S. Constitution into the record, if I can, by unanimous consent so it can be reviewed because I think we also need to go to another section that talks about unlawful occupancy. The only part of the constitution that talks about unlawful occupancy of your home says, in amendment three, “No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house.” So basically, the federal government and the constitution says the protection as a homeowner gives you the ability to determine who comes in your house. Here we’re saying, “Each day of unlawful occupancy shall be considered a separate violation” and you’ll be subject to a federal fine. That’s what this section does.

You’ve got a number of groups that have come out in strong opposition to section 201 and support my amendment. I’d like to read and enter into the record a letter from about nine different organizations including the National Association of Home Builders, the National Association of Realtors, the Building Owners and Managers Association International, the National Apartment Association and a number of others who said, “The proposal creates a new authority for the federal government to police building codes, holds developers and owners of buildings including homeowners liable for not reaching federal energy efficiency mandates, even if the buildings are presumably in compliance with applicable local building codes and establishes a civil penalty for violators of this section of the bill. This measure would have a chilling effect on development and property transfer across the spectrum of real properties.”

Now we’re in a housing slump right now. Why would we want to be passing legislation that creates a federal building code with civil penalties and tells people living in their houses that they’re unlawful occupying that house if they don’t immediate this new federal building code when they’re in compliance with their own state’s federal building code? This is ludicrous. I’ll enter these letters into the record including the one from the National Association of Home Builders which goes further and talks about the legal problems with this, and also the shortfalls, how this would adversely effect homeowners in this country, who would be subject to this global warming police that would be created to come in and drag you out of your house and fine you civilly in federal court because maybe you wanted to protect your family at a higher level than the federal government.

So if we wonder why the Senate is the last place in America that still doesn’t get it – that climate change is a real problem for people and that carbon pollution is something that people should pay for when they emit it, big utilities, big industry — gee, connect the dots.

Watch it:

“For as long as there’s been pollution,” Sen. Whitehouse explained, “there has been a constant battle with polluters who don’t want to pay the costs of their pollution, either preventing or cleaning it up”:

They’d like to just dump it and have it be somebody else’s problem. There’s absolutely nothing new about that. Polluters don’t want to pay. What’s new is our understanding of what the costs are of carbon pollution. Economic costs, environmental costs, wildlife and habitat costs, and as we’ve recently learned, very significant national security costs.

The E&E News story Whitehouse entered in the Congressional Record explains how pollution lobbyists are vastly outspending environmental groups and clean energy companies:

Thus far in 2009, all environmental groups combined have spent a grand total of $4.7 million on lobbying, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The Nature Conservancy, which has spent $850,000 thus far, tops the list.

The various renewable energy companies have spent a grand total of $7.5 million, with the biggest spender there being the American Wind Energy Association which has spent just over $1.2 million.

By comparison, Exxon Mobil Corp. alone has spent more than $9.3 million in the first few months of 2009. The company’s lobbying totals exceed any other single corporation or organization except the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has spent a total of $15.5 million.

The chamber, which has been by far the single biggest lobbying force in Washington over the last decade, has likewise been active in the energy debate this year, though it is unclear from the disclosure records what amount — if any — the organization has spent on lobbying of lawmakers. Its totals are not included in the calculations for any energy-specific industries.

Other heavyweights in the energy sector include: Chevron Corp. at $6.8 million, ConocoPhillips at $6 million, BP at $3.6 million and Marathon Oil at $3.4 million. All four are among the 20 biggest lobbying spenders in any sector in the first few months of 2009, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

As for electric utilities, the biggest single lobbying spender is Southern Co. at $3.7 million, followed by the Edison Electric Institute at $2.6 million, American Electric Power Co. Inc. at $1.7 million and Exelon Corp. at $1.54 million.

If we can reach agreement with the coal sector, with the steel, with the auto sector, with the refining sector on our committee, which is very representative of the Congress as a whole, then we believe that’ll be a template for passage in the Senate, as well. Because the agreements we’ll reach will be the very same agreements that those industry leaders … will be able to represent to senators are the basis for passage of legislation that they can support.

Members of Markey’s energy and environment subcommittee with strong ties to those sectors include Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA: $50,942 from steel), Rep. Baron Hill (D-IN: $113,033 from auto), Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT: $177,946 from coal), and Rep. Gene Green (D-TX: $330,613 from oil). The trade publication E&E News has identified 13 members of the 34-member subcommittee as swing votes. These “maybe” officials have received an average of $678,570 in lifetime contributions from those sectors, as opposed to $149,397 for the nine “yes” votes:

Average lifetime contributions from the automotive, steel & chemical, oil & gas, and mining & utility sectors to members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and its Energy & Environment Subcommittee (Center for Responsive Politics). Position on Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act estimated by E&E News. Chart by the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

The average energy committee member opposed or wavering on the green economy legislation has received six times as much lifetime climate polluter cash as the average supporter:

Carbon-sector contributions to members of the House Committee on Energy & Commerce. Click to enlarge.

The obstructionist politicians working to weaken the ACES Act are ironically threatening the future of the industries who fill their campaign coffers. The nation needs to set strong standards for energy efficiency, renewable energy, and global warming pollution in order to compete in the 21st century economy. “Limiting greenhouse gas emissions will enhance U.S. competitiveness,” Center for American Progress senior fellow Jake Caldwell writes. “A carbon cap-and-trade program will reduce emissions and send a predictable price signal on carbon, which in turn will spur major investment in energy efficient and low-carbon technologies, foster innovation and upgrades, and create jobs and export led growth in clean energy technology.”

When the incomplete draft of the ACES Act was unveiled at the end of March, co-sponsors Markey and Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee, indicated that they planned to conduct a markup of the bill in Markey’s subcommittee before going to the full committee. After the meeting with Obama, Waxman announced that he could potentially bypass Markey’s subcommittee “and mark up the legislation before the entire 59-member panel.”

E&E News Projected Vote Breakdown For Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act:

While the exact numbers were still in flux, Doyle said, “The majority of the permits will be allocated (given away) at first.”

Asked what percentage would be sold to utilities, manufacturers and other firms, Doyle responded, “Not a big number initially…in the first 10 to 15 years.”

The Center for American Progress “supports auctioning 100 percent of the greenhouse gas emission permits from day one under a cap-and-trade program” and using the auction revenues to assist workers and industries to make the transition to a low-carbon economy:

This would include supporting new investments in green technology and energy efficiency; sheltering American households from any economic dislocations due to shifting energy prices; alleviating higher costs for energy-intensive industries; adapting to some of the effects of global warming that we are already experiencing globally; and creating good, “green jobs” and more vibrant, healthier communities in this process. A 100 percent auction will ensure that large polluters, and not the hardworking Americans least able to foot the bill, are financing the investments necessary to carry out these vital public projects.

Of course, without any climate policy, the public is subsidizing all the costs of global warming pollution, as the threat of catastrophic climate change grows without bound. So even a cap-and-trade system that pays hundreds of billions of dollars of public money to corporate polluters to get them to clean up their act is better than the alternative. As President Obama explained to business leaders in March, he is flexible on his campaign pledge for full auction of pollution permits:

Now, the experience of a cap-and-trade system thus far is that if you’re giving away carbon permits for free, then basically you’re not really pricing the thing and it doesn’t work, or people can game the system in so many ways that it’s not creating the incentive structures that we’re looking for. The flip side is, you’re right, if it’s so onerous that people can’t meet it, then it defeats the purpose — and politically we can’t get it done anyway.

Supporting a filibuster for green economy legislation: Roll call votes #125, 126, and 164.

Requiring that green economy legislation not affect the cost of energy production or use: Roll call votes #116, 117, and 169.

Ideologically, Specter is in line with Democrats like Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN), who worries that Obama’s clean economy proposal may “suck money” from his state, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA), who is “against forcing petrochemical companies” to “bear the brunt of new costs,” and Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE), who worries cap and trade “could have a negative impact on our economy.”

Specter, whose top donors include the electric utilities Exelon Corporation and PPL Corporation, has told Pennsylvania students that “his main platform in running for re-election is global warming.” There’s still time for him — and the Democrats he’s joining — to build that platform, but more change will have to come.

We’ve got to finance this and we’ve got to enforce it. Cap and trade is one mechanism, an energy tax is another. Every economist says that a carbon tax is a better, more efficient, fairer way of doing it. The Europeans have had two, maybe three fine failures in their application of cap and trade. How do we avoid the mistakes that they made? And how do we come up with something that gives us the best? Nobody in this country realizes that cap and trade is a tax, and it’s a great big one! I want to get a bill that works — how do we choose the best course?

Watch it:

Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), the National Review, the Drudge Report, and other right-wingers have seized on Dingell’s comments. Rep. Mike Pence’s (R-IN) spokesman pushed the comments to Politico, claiming: “Chairman Dingell agrees with what Republicans have been saying all along: the Democrat cap and trade bill is a national energy tax on working families.” However, Dingell has proposed both carbon-tax and cap-and-trade legislation to stop giving polluters the right to continue polluting for free.

Vice President Gore responded that both a carbon tax and market-based cap can address the climate crisis while strengthening the economy:

I have for twenty years supported a CO2 tax that’s given back to the people so that it’s revenue-neutral but accomplishes the desired effect. But I’ve never proposed it as a substitute for cap and trade. I’m in favor of both. And the number of countries that have done the best job of addressing the climate crisis and strengthening their economies have in fact put both in place. But I believe the cap-and-trade approach is the essential first step partly because it is the only basis on which we can envision a truly global agreement, because it’s very hard to imagine a harmonized global tax.

Countries like Denmark, Norway, and Holland which have both a carbon tax and cap-and-trade are indeed weathering the global recession much better than countries like the United States. In fact, Denmark is both the most taxed country on earth and the best country for business in the world.

It is our nation’s dependence on polluting fuels that acts as a tax on society — “a great big one.” As corporations pollute for free, everyone else pays for the disease, asthma, heat waves, droughts, floods, storms, sea level rise, and economic and national insecurity that results. Dingell has spent his political career misguidedly fighting pollution and efficiency standards on behalf of the domestic automotive industry, putting Detroit on the verge of bankruptcy. As millions of Americans understand, it’s time for Washington to repower America with laws that reward work instead of pollution.

Vitter said:

“According a preliminary estimate based on the Center for American Progress data, 271,000 oil and gas jobs would be destroyed annually by the administration’s proposed new taxes and fees on energy.”

Watch it:

This is a totally fabricated distortion of our 2008 report, “Green Recovery: A New Program to Create Good Jobs and Start Building a Low-Carbon Economy.”

We wondered where Vitter got it — it turns out this talking point has been circulating for some time, appearing in a document put out by the American Petroleum Institute, in a messaging memo from the oil-backed group Freedom Works, and on a set of talking points hosted on ConocoPhillips’ web site.

The point is a complete distortion of our data (nothing new for conservatives when it comes to energy policy). Our “Green Recovery” report shows that a two-year $100 billion federal investment in a green recovery program, including investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy, would create approximately 2 million jobs. The same amount of money invested in the oil industry would create 542,000 jobs over two years or…271,000 per year.

Apparently, they’ve taken this to mean that President Obama’s energy plan would cost 271,000 lost oil and gas jobs every year, which is simply not what the report says.

This was an analysis of two alternative stimulus plans, one focused on greening the economy, and one focused on boosting the oil industry. The report found that greening the economy creates far more jobs (four times as many) than plowing the same amount of federal money into oil.

Now, to be fair, as the United States shifts off of oil and fossil fuels in the years ahead, there will necessarily be fewer jobs created in the dirty energy, oil & gas extraction and petroleum refining industries, even as more jobs are created in the renewable energy industry, efficiency improvements, and infrastructure upgrades. What is true, however, is that this shift will yield a major net expansion in employment — about 1.2 million more jobs for every $100 billion shift in spending out of fossil fuels and into clean energy.

This job expansion will cover the full range of job categories and every region of the country. This major expansion in employment will result because renewable energy and efficiency improvements are more labor intensive, and substitute domestic spending for imported energy.

If the beneficiaries of the dirty energy status quo and their allies in Congress like Senator Vitter want to defend the interests of the oil & gas industries in order to block the greening of our economy, prevent the creation of millions of new jobs, continue with more of the same Bush-Cheney energy policies that have kept America dependent on oil, and accelerate catastrophic climate change, that’s their right.

Just don’t distort our research in order to do it.

Carbon dioxide, Mister Speaker, is a natural byproduct of nature. Carbon dioxide is natural. It occurs in Earth. It is a part of the regular lifecycle of Earth. In fact, life on planet Earth can’t even exist without carbon dioxide. So necessary is it to human life, to animal life, to plant life, to the oceans, to the vegetation that’s on the Earth, to the, to the fowl that — that flies in the air, we need to have carbon dioxide as part of the fundamental lifecycle of Earth.

Watch it:

Rep. Blumenauer (D-OR), later in the evening, demolished Bachmann for “making things up on the floor of the House”:

My good friend, the gentlelady from Minnesota, doesn’t think there are any problems with the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It’s interesting to listen to her say that something that was naturally occurring simply couldn’t be harmful, ignoring the fact that we have the highest concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for 2/3 of a million years.

The consensus of the scientific community — not people making things up on the floor of the House — is that this has been profoundly influenced by human activity, starting with the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, where we started consuming huge quantities of coal, burning fossil fuels, accelerating that over time. The consensus of the scientific community is that this is in fact a serious problem.

Furthermore, attempting to repeat the goofy denier talking point that carbon dioxide makes up only a fraction of the atmospheric content and thus isn’t of concern, Bachmann errs wildly. She claims that carbon dioxide makes up “three percent of the atmosphere,” when in fact it only comprises 0.04% — off by a factor of a hundred. As Blumenauer pointed out, CO2 levels are significantly higher than they’ve been throughout human history. Only a hundred years ago, CO2 concentrations were only 0.03%. Of course, when it comes to the greenhouse effect, only global warming gases are relevant. And carbon dioxide is the predominant greenhouse gas.

But Bachmann hasn’t ever been one to let her political rants be constrained by the facts.

Transcript:

BACHMANN: But people talk about cap and tax and they aren’t sure exactly what we’re talking about. Let’s get back to step one. What is the problem? Why do we have to have this tax in the first place?

It’s about carbon dioxide.

Well, what is carbon dioxide? Let’s just go to a fundamental question.

Carbon dioxide, Mister Speaker, is a natural byproduct of nature. Carbon dioxide is natural. It occurs in Earth. It is a part of the regular lifecycle of Earth. In fact, life on planet Earth can’t even exist without carbon dioxide. So necessary is it to human life, to animal life, to plant life, to the oceans, to the vegetation that’s on the Earth, to the, to the fowl that — that flies in the air, we need to have carbon dioxide as part of the fundamental lifecycle of Earth.

As a matter of fact, carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful!

But there isn’t even one study that can be produced that shows carbon dioxide is a harmful gas. There isn’t one such study because carbon dioxide is not a harmful gas, it is a harmless gas. Carbon dioxide is natural. It is not harmful. It is part of Earth’s life cycle.

And yet we’re being told that we have to reduce this natural substance and reduce the American standard of living to create an arbitrary reduction in something that is naturally occuring in the earth. Well we’re told the crux of this problem is human activity. It’s humans that are creating more carbon dioxide!

Is that true, or is that false?

Well, carbon dioxide is a natural part of Earth’s atmosphere. The carbon dioxide is perhaps three percent of the total atmosphere that’s in the Earth. So if you take a pie chart, and you have all of Earth’s atmosphere, carbon dioxide is perhaps three percent of that total.

What part of human activity creates carbon dioxide? If carbon dioxide is a negligible gas and it’s only three percent of Earth’s atmosphere, what part is human activity?

Human activity contributes perhaps three percent of the three percent. In other words, human activity is maybe 3 percent contributing to the 3 percent of carbon dioxide that’s in Earth’s atmosphere. It’s so negligible — it’s a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent — that it can hardly be — be quantified.

…

BLUMENAUER: My good friend, the gentlelady from Minnesota, doesn’t think there are any problems with the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It’s interesting to listen to her say that something that was naturally occurring simply couldn’t be harmful, ignoring the fact that we have the highest concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for 2/3 of a million years.

The consensus of the scientific community — not people making things up on the floor of the House — is that this has been profoundly influenced by human activity, starting with the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, where we started consuming huge quantities of coal, burning fossil fuels, accelerating that over time. The consensus of the scientific community is that this is in fact a serious problem.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee has taken up comprehensive clean energy legislation, the American Clean Energy and Security Act, that Obama administration officials praised in hearings yesterday. The committee will be voting on the legislation in the coming weeks.

The first ads released are from the League of Conservation Voters and MoveOn, sharing an optimistic vision of “clean energy jobs.” Local ads target members of the energy committee in key states, such as Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) and Rep. Charles A. Gonzalez (D-TX).

MoveOn’s “America Must Lead” (national):

ANNOUNCER: America must end our economic crisis and dependence on foreign oil. The answer: A clean energy jobs bill, which could create millions of American jobs. But if we don’t invest in American manufacturing, those jobs could go overseas.

OBAMA: I do not accept a future where the jobs and industries of tomorrow take root beyond our borders. And I know you don’t either.

ANNOUNCER: Make our energy clean. Make it in America.

Watch it:

League of Conservation Voters: “Tell Mike Rogers It’s Time to Start Believing in America Again” (local):

America is a can-do country. We can create millions of new clean energy jobs and become a global leader in energy technology. But Mike Rogers says no. No to clean energy. No to millions of new jobs. At the same time, Mike Rogers has taken hundreds of thousands of dollars from Big Oil, and voted to hold America back. Call Mike Rogers and tell him it’s time to start believing in America again.

Watch it:

MoveOn’s “Clean American Dream” (local):

Starts a business making homes more energy efficient. Buys three new trucks. Rents a bigger warehouse. Hires five new employees. Expands to the next four counties. Hires 16 new employees. Gives them all raises. Multiply this story by thousands like it, and we could have millions of new jobs, a strong economy, and a cleaner future. Tell Rep. Gonzales to vote for a strong, clean energy jobs bill.

Watch it: