The Obama administration on Wednesday called a Democratic House proposal to reduce greenhouse gases and tackle climate change a “jobs bill” and an investment in new energy priorities, rejecting Republican criticism that it will undermine the economy by increasing costs for consumers.
Top environmental advisers to President Barack Obama broadly endorsed the draft bill that would cap greenhouse gases and reduce the nation’s reliance on fossil fuels. However, the administration officials cautioned that the White House will work with House Democrats to fine tune the legislation in the coming weeks.
GOP lawmakers have criticized the climate measure, calling it a massive energy tax because it will put a price on carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels.
But EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said the bill would “create good American jobs that cannot be shipped overseas” and, like Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., the chief sponsor of the bill, rejected any conflict between dealing with climate change and economic growth.
“The ‘no we can’t’ crowd will spin out doomsday scenarios about runaway costs,” said Jackson. But she said a preliminary EPA analysis of the House bill, including its “cap-and-trade” program to wind down greenhouse gas emissions, “would be modest compared to the benefits that science and plain common sense tell us a comprehensive energy and climate policy will deliver.”
Jackson was joined at the House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing by Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, a Republican member of the Obama Cabinet and former congressman who may help sway some GOP votes toward supporting the Waxman legislation. All three said the House bill would reduce dependence on foreign oil, spur green jobs and reduce catastrophic global warming.
Waxman said dealing with global warming and the nation’s economic future are “inextricably intertwined” and that addressing climate change will produce new green jobs and foster economic growth.
“The proposal for cap and tax will raise the energy rates for producing everything in the United States of America. If we dramatically raise the rates of electricity we will not be competitive when it comes to building anything,” Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich.
Chu acknowledged that limits on greenhouse gases would increase energy production costs — both gasoline and electricity — but he said overall consumer energy bills would not increase because the legislation also is designed to spur increased efficiency. “Costs would actually be held constant,” he maintained.
The administration’s energy cost estimates are based on the government distributing 40 percent of the money collected from auctioning credits back to households to offset energy-related energy expenses. The House bill has yet to work out a emissions credit allocation proposal.
The draft bill calls for a reduction of greenhouse gases by 20 percent from 2005 levels by 2020, and 83 percent by mid-century. It also includes measures aimed at reducing the use of fossil energy such as requiring utilities to produce a quarter of their electricity from renewable sources, and calling for tougher standards to promote conservation.
Waxman said he is determined to pass a bill through his committee by the end of May. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has said she wants climate legislation passed before the August congressional recess. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he would like to take up a global warming bill in the fall, preferring to wait for House action.
Supporters of the House bill said increased pressure is on Congress to act since the Environmental Protection Agency last Friday declared that greenhouse emissions endanger public health and safety — the first step in regulating climate-changing pollution under the federal Clean Air Act.
“We’re going to have to regulate it under the Clean Air Act unless this committee does something,” said Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich. And he said he believes that would require more than 100 separate regulations covering various parts of the economy.
“I believe new legislation is the best way,” said Jackson. She said the endangerment finding was compelled by an order from the Supreme Court. “If your point, sir, is it’s more efficient to do it [through legislation] … then I couldn’t agree more,” Jackson told Dingell.
