In an Ideas piece, Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) warns not to turn a blind eye to our dire economic circumstances, pushing a reckless climate bill that stands to bankrupt America's working families, with no guarantee of helping the environment. | John Shinkle/POLITICO
By Rep. Fred Upton
The June unemployment numbers came in recently with higher-than-anticipated job losses, at 467,000.
In 2009 alone, the economy has shed a staggering 3.2 million jobs and our national unemployment rate now hovers just below double digits. In my home state of Michigan, unemployment sits at 14.1 percent and continues to grow. Yet Democratic leaders have turned a blind eye to our dire economic circumstances, pushing a reckless climate bill that stands to bankrupt America's working families, with no guarantee of helping the environment.
I do believe that we must reduce our carbon emissions and promote the development of clean energy — whether it be through nuclear power, clean coal technologies or renewables like wind, solar and hydro power. But cap and tax is a vicious assault on working families who are already struggling to keep the lights on.
The proposed carbon mandates would mean that the United States could not emit more in the year 2050 than we emitted in 1910. To put these figures into perspective, meeting proposed mandates will require us to scale back our emissions to a per capita level equivalent to those of the tiny Central American nation of Belize. To reach this unrealistic 83 percent reduction, emissions from the transportation sector would have to drop to zero, as would those from all electricity generation, and then we would still need to reduce all other sources of greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent.
Study after study has indicated that families can expect to see their power bills increase by thousands of dollars and jobs will be lost at a time when we can least afford it. The Congressional Budget Office conservatively estimated that rolling back the clock to reach 1910 emissions levels would cost $864 billion, while some estimates put the number closer to $1.5 trillion. CBO also estimated that gasoline costs would increase by 77 cents per gallon and diesel by 88 cents. It is well past time that we start standing up for the nation's working families who have watched their paychecks, jobs and savings evaporate.
It is not just Washington-based studies predicting exorbitant costs to families. In Michigan, Consumers Energy, a subsidiary of CMS Energy, predicts hefty rate increases in excess of 38 percent for families to comply with cap and tax. The increases will most likely be higher as CMS did not take into account inflation, rising fuel costs or capital construction costs. The increased rates are a particular killer for businesses. I have spoken to local manufacturers in Michigan who say they will cease operating during the daytime because of the prohibitive utility costs during peak hours. Every community has a similar story to tell.
Efforts to improve the legislation with constructive amendments were blocked every step of the way. We sought to add common-sense consumer protections to safeguard America's working families from economic disaster, but each time we were rebuffed. If the bill's authors are so confident that their plan creates jobs and will cost families only the equivalent of a postage stamp a day — a very expensive stamp, I would say — why did they repeatedly reject amendments that would have added escape clauses and protections should energy costs spike or if millions of jobs are lost?
Our efforts to include the world's leading emitters in the legislation were thwarted, as well. Meaningful climate change requires global participation, especially that of India and China. In late May, the Energy Information Administration released its forecast predicting that global energy demand is expected to soar 44 percent over the next two decades — with most of the demand coming from countries like China and India. Without international participation, jobs and emissions will simply shift overseas to countries that require few, if any, environmental protections, harming the global environment as well as the U.S. economy.
Our alternative, the "all of the above" American Energy Act, will reduce emissions, create jobs and keep energy costs affordable. A principal component of our legislation calls for the construction of 100 new nuclear reactors over the next 20 years. According to data from Oxford Economics, building 100 new nuclear reactors and an appropriate number of enrichment and reprocessing plants over the next 20 years would create over 1 million new jobs. Nuclear is not only emissions-free, but renewing our commitment to nuclear power will create countless jobs at a time when our nation endures nearly double-digit unemployment.
We have a unique opportunity and responsibility to reduce emissions and preserve our economy. The American public is desperate for solutions, but a national energy tax is not the answer.
Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) is a senior member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
Fred Upton,
Unemployment,
American Workers,
Climate Change Bills