As Kate Sheppard wrote in Mother Jones:

Oliver North is using climate change denialism to fundraise for his non-profit group Freedom Alliance. In a six-page stream-of-consciousness fundraising letter, North warns of the “liberty killing ‘Cap and Trade’ boondoggle” that socialists are plotting in response to the “phony climate ‘crisis.’ ” The solution? Write him a check.

Climate change would appear to have little connection to Freedom Alliance’s stated mission, which is “to advance the American heritage of freedom by honoring and encouraging military service, defending the sovereignty of the United States and promoting a strong national defense.” And it’s not clear which roles on North’s resume—his past notoriety in the Iran-Contra scandal or his current gig as a Fox News host and commentator—best qualify him to weigh in on climate science.

Nevertheless, in his letter and a petition sent to supporters, North mashes together all manner of wacky climate change denier talking points.

UPDATE:  Below is a repost of Brad Johnson’s analysis on Think Progress, which notes that at one point, North attacks wind farms as “virtual bird eating machines”:

Lt. Col. Oliver North (Ret.) has launched a new war against the “cap and tax” plans of President Barack Obama and the “socialists in Congress.” North — when not serving as a Fox News correspondent — runs the Freedom Alliance, an organization supposedly dedicated to “defending the sovereignty of the United States and promoting a strong national defense.” In a mailing acquired by ThinkProgress, North pleads for “your most-special and generous donation” to fight the “‘cap and tax’ scheme and the myth of global warming.” North warns that if “Barack Obama and the socialists in Congress” establish a system to limit global warming pollution, it will be “at our nation’s peril!”

Never mind the fact that there is no proof of man-made global warming.

Never mind the fact that Europe's "Cap and Tax" policies have failed to lower greenhouse gases.

Never mind the fact that the world has actually been cooling for the last ten years.

And never mind that there is no evidence that greenhouse gases have anything to do with global warming in the first place.

No sir! None of this matters to Barack Obama and the socialists in Congress.

Because what they really want is to control your life and mine . . .

. . . and we allow them to succeed at our nation's peril!

North goes on to attack windmill farms as “virtual bird eating machines.” The attached “petition to President Barack Obama” claims that the “dirty little secret” of global warming “is that it is a scam designed at increasing the wealth of frauds like Al Gore and nations like Red China at America’s expense.”

In reality, the “scientific evidence is clear,” as the American Association for the Advancement of Science said in 2006, that “global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.” In reality, the European Trading System has worked, and Europe is on track to easily beat its 2012 Kyoto Protocol commitments. In reality, the last ten years are the hottest decade in history. In reality, as Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has said, climate legislation will allow us to “help this planet” that “is in peril, create millions of new jobs for Americans that need them, and to become energy independent to make us safer.”

But none of this matters to Ollie North and his conservative compatriots.

In the mailing, North notes that he “served in the United States Marine Corps for 22 years.” He does not, however, mention that he was convicted by a jury for illegally selling weapons to Iran during the Reagan administration.

Download the Freedom Alliance mailing and petition.

JR:  At the end of the fundraising letter, North adds this P.S. at the end:

Again, ever wonder why the liberals now always try to use the new term “catastrophic climate change” rather than “global warming.” It’s because it allows them to blame EVERY weather event (heat waves, blizzards, floods, draughts, hurricanes, etc.) on you, me, and our current use of fossil fuels. The goal? To destroy our way of life and con us into giving away billions of dollars to solve a non-crisis we have no power to prevent, even if it were real! I hope and pray that you understand – and that you will sign our PETITION TO PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA and rush it and your gift of $20, $25, $35, $50, $75, $100, or more back to me here at Freedom Alliance today.

JR:  Hmm.  I still use the term “global warming” all the time — guess I didn’t get the memo.  Ironically, many liberals are using the term “catastrophic climate change” and “global warming” less these days, but that’s another story.

Yesterday, former Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) reminded radio host Rush Limbaugh that she doesn’t believe in man-made global warming. Palin, on a nationwide tour to promote her new book, Going Rogue, questioned the “snake oil science involved” and complained about the “shady science right now.” Palin said that she thinks any changes are “in a lot of respects, cyclical”:

It’s kind of tough to figure out with the shady science right now, what are we supposed to be doing right now with our climate. Are we warming or are we cooling? I don’t think Americans are even told anymore if it’s global warming or just climate change. And I don’t attribute all the changes to man’s activities. I think that this is, in a lot of respects, cyclical and the earth does cool and it warms.

Palin, of course, lives in the state that is at the epicenter of man-made global warming. Global warming has caused Alaska’s average temperature to rise by 3.4°F, causing once-frozen land to collapse, glaciers to disappear, outbreaks of beetles and wildfires to spread, and forcing Todd Palin’s Iron Dog race to move hundreds of miles north. And yes, the science is clear that it’s because of all the fossil fuels Palin loves to “tap into.”

Speaking to the Economist recently, Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) told reporters that he questions the science underpinning climate change. Pawlenty explained that while the earth might be warming, it is unclear “to what extent that is the result of natural causes.” As ThinkProgress has noted, Pawlenty has veered sharply to the right to appease a right-wing, tea party base. Although the tea party movement demands strict adherence to far right positions, as a Democracy Corps study shows, much of the movement sees political issues through a prism that is simply divorced from reality.

In appeasing the tea party base, Pawlenty not only dismisses the stark reality that human-caused carbon emissions are the largest contributor to climate change, but he also sacrifices his own credibility. Over the course of the last three years, Pawlenty has gone from an outspoken proponent of clean energy to a Glenn Beck pandering climate change denier:

Dec. 2006: Pawlenty lays out an ambitious clean energy program for Minnesotans to reduce their use of fossil fuels 15 percent by 2015. Cutting greenhouse gases, Pawlenty said, would “be good for the environment, good for rural economies, good for national security and good for consumers.” He also calls for a regional cap and trade program.

May 2007: Pawlenty signs the Next Generation Energy Act of 2007, requiring the state to reduce its emissions 15 percent by 2015 and 80 percent in 2050. At the signing ceremony, Pawlenty said Minnesota was “kicking-starting the future” by “tackling greenhouse gas emissions.”

Oct. 2007: Pawlenty declares that the climate change issue is “one of the most important of our time.” He also brushes off “some flak” from right-wingers who doubt climate change science.

Sept. 2008: During the election, Pawlenty backs away from his own cap and trade program, says such a system would “wreck the economy.” He then tells hate radio personality Glenn Beck (a climate change denier) that human activity only contributes “half a percent” to climate change.

Nov. 2009: Pawlenty backs away from acknowledging that any human activity is the cause of climate change.

JR:  How far has Pawlenty fallen from bipartisan supporter of climate action to right-wing ideologue?  Click here to listen to radio ad that he made with Gov. Janet Napolitano (D-AZ), two years ago, for Environmental Defense (!) urging Congress to take immediate action on global warming.

The NY Times story has one of the true glass-is-half-full headlines of our times:

G.M., Citing Progress, Reports Loss of $1.15 Billion

But these days, you take good news where you can find it, and the rest of the story is certainly a pleasant surprise:

General Motors, whose very survival was in doubt this year, is showing signs of life after its brief tour through bankruptcy this summer.G.M. said Monday that while it was still losing money, it had stabilized enough that it could take an important symbolic step and begin returning some of the $50 billion that the federal government provided to help give it a second chance.

The Obama administration said it was “encouraged” by G.M.’s initial performance since emerging from bankruptcy in July.

Others who had supported a G.M. bailout, despite widespread skepticism that the company’s problems were too big and numerous to fix, said G.M. had taken a big step toward a lasting recovery.

“The company is on its way to fulfilling its promise to American taxpayers,” said Representative John D. Dingell, Democrat of Michigan.

If GM can survive and thrive, it will certainly be one of the great corporate turnarounds of all time — and vindication for the taxpayer-funded bailout.

The company has a very long road ahead, though, and it will have to navigate a future that will increasingly favor more fuel efficient cars, as well as smaller cars and alternative fuel vehicles, particularly those with electric drives, because of a combination of peak oil, Obama’s deal to raise fuel economy standards, and growing domestic and global concern about global warming:

• Deutsche Bank: Oil to hit $175 a barrel by 2016, which “will drive a final stake into long-term oil demand,” spurred by a “disruptive technology” — “the hybrid and electric car, that will very likely have a far greater positive impact on oil efficiency than the market currently expects”
• World’s top energy economist warns peak oil threatens recovery, urges immediate action: “We have to leave oil before oil leaves us.”
• Obama will raise new car fuel efficiency standards to 35.5 mpg by 2015

So GM will have to be nimble and profitable in a car market that will become less and less like the one of the last few decades.  Still, GM appears to be turning around even in these tough times:

G.M.’s results showed a healthier balance sheet, ample cash, and factory production much more in line with consumer demand — improvements it owes largely to the bankruptcy process, the helping hand of the federal government and a modest increase in car sales.

Even with that help, the nation’s largest automaker still lost nearly $1.2 billion in the third quarter.

But G.M.’s managers and directors have also made some fast decisions to help the company. They have shaken up the company’s famously bureaucratic culture. And they have used aggressive marketing, including a 60-day money-back guarantee, and some well-received new products, like the Cadillac SRX crossover, to bring shoppers back to showrooms.

As a result, even though G.M. has shed four of its brands, it has managed to hold onto roughly a fifth of the overall car market in the United States. The company is also generating cash now, rather than bleeding it.

That is why the company is in a position to begin paying back $6.7 billion in federal loans as soon as next month. “We think it’s important that we show the taxpayer we can repay this investment,” G.M.’s chief executive, Fritz Henderson, said Monday.

G.M. is still faring poorly compared to its cross-town rival, the Ford Motor Company, which earned a $1-billion profit in the third quarter without the benefit of any government assistance.

So here’s the question of the day:  Will GM make it and pay back all of the taxpayers’ loans?

Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) knows that his state’s trees are being ravaged by warming-driven pests now and that Montana faces 175% to 400% increase in wildfire burn area if we don’t reverse course sharply and soon on greenhouse gas emissions.  That’s why he supports strong climate action and said last week, “There’s no doubt that this Congress is going to pass climate change legislation.”

Bizarrely, though, his Finance Committee will hold an utterly missable hearing today on the “future of jobs” under clean energy legislation that has a witness list stacked with fossil-fuel-industry-funded polluters and deniers.  Wonk Room has the story, excerpted below:

Appearing before the committee are four industry or conservative lobbyists and one coal-industry union lobbyist, Abraham Breehey. The only economist to testify will be Margo Thorning, a lobbyist for the anti-tax American Council on Capital Formation. Also testifying is Carol Berrigan, a nuclear industry representative, Van Ton-Quinlivan of Pacific Gas & Electric, and American Enterprise Institute fellow Kenneth Green.

Green regularly spouts anti-scientific nonsense like, “We’re back to the average temperatures that prevailed in 1978….  No matter what you’ve been told, the technology to significantly reduce emissions is decades away and extremely costly” — from a 2008 speech AEI later removed from their website (excerpts here).  Last month, Green weirdly compared EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to Clint Eastwood and carbon polluters to criminals.

One could point out that Berrigan’s organization, the Nuclear Energy Institute, is not satisfied that clean energy legislation will spur nuclear energy through free-market competition, but is demanding massive subsidies and tax breaks as well.

One could point out that ACCF and AEI have received millions of dollars in funding from Exxon Mobil alone, or that Thorning refuses to reveal her methodology and Green has tried to buy climate scientists for $10,000 a pop.

Instead, let’s just note that tomorrow’s testimony will likely rehash the talking points that these witnesses have delivered time and again for the past ten years. Other than Ton-Quinlivan, who is appearing for the first time before Congress, the witnesses are regulars on the Hill, testifying a combined 20 times on climate and energy policy since 2002. Thorning has been the most frequent guest over the years, and this will be Green’s fifth time testifying since June.

Margo Thorning:

• 3/26/09 House Ways & Means
• 3/18/09 House Energy and Commerce
• 9/18/08 House Global Warming
• 11/8/07 Senate Environment and Public Works
• 7/24/07 Senate Environment and Public Works
• 7/11/07 House Foreign Affairs
• 4/5/06 Senate Commerce & Senate Judiciary
• 4/3/06 Senate Energy and Natural Resources
• 10/5/05 Senate EPW
• 6/5/03 Senate Environment and Public Works

Kenneth P. Green

• 10/28/09 Senate Environment and Public Works
• 10/22/09 House Global Warming
• 10/15/09 Senate Foreign Relations
• 6/9/09 Senate Environment and Public Works
• 9/25/07 Senate Environment and Public Works
• 3/13/02 Senate Governmental Affairs

Carol Berrigan:

• 11/6/07 Senate Energy and Natural Resources
• 9/27/07 Senate Environment and Public Works

Abraham Breehey

• 2/14/08 Senate Finance
• 2/2/05 Senate Environment and Public Works

If the Finance Committee is really trying to learn something new about whether reforming our pollution-based energy infrastructure would create new jobs, one would think they could have put a little more effort in witness selection.

Precisely.

Related Posts:

• Investing in a clean energy recovery to create 1.7 million net new jobs
• Clean energy bank could drive $200 billion in investment, generating over 2 million jobs

Some of this sacred trust is codified in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Some is unwritten and implied. And although the Constitution dictates that we keep government and religion separate, there are places in public policy where secular values and moral values overlap. Stewardship of nature and its resources – called “creation care” in religious circles – is one of those places.

Government’s stewardship responsibility is recognized in the body of laws past congresses developed once we realized that burning rivers, poisoned water, dangerous air, carcinogenic fish and toxic wastes were not in the national interest.  In the  landmark National Environmental Policy Act, for example, Congress declared:

It is the continuing responsibility of the Federal Government to use all practicable means, consistent with other essential considerations of national policy, to improve and coordinate Federal plans, functions, programs, and resources to the end that the Nation may . . . fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations . . .

Some legal experts believe public officials have a fiduciary duty to protect the commons – the air, soil, water and forests on which we all depend.  Prof. Mary Wood at the University of Oregon law school champions the idea of an “atmospheric trust doctrine” under which government officials are held legally responsible for failing to reduce carbon emissions. According to research commissioned by the Presidential Climate Action Project and conducted by the University of Colorado Law School, that type of legal accountability doesn’t exist in federal statutes today. But Wood argues that the common law trust principle underlies the statutes, and the courts should enforce it:

Such litigation rests on the premise that all governments hold natural resources in trust for their citizens and bear the fiduciary obligation to protect such resources for future generations. The courts have the ability to enforce this fiduciary obligation to reduce carbon at all levels of government…

Two-thirds of the greenhouse gas pollution being emitted by the United States is in compliance with government-issued permits, Wood says.  That means government is not fulfilling either its fiduciary or its moral responsibility in regard to climate change and its profoundly destructive impacts. Yet in past court cases, Wood says, we can find the seeds of an atmospheric trust doctrine. For example, in a 1982 case involving a railroad and the State of Illinois, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled:

The State can no more abdicate its trust over property in which the whole people are interested…than it can abdicate its police powers in the administration of government and the preservation of peace…

The Philippines Supreme Court, whose opinions might be less important to us in other countries if the court weren’t discussing a global issue and basic morality, said it even better in a ruling about logging in an ancient forest:

These basic rights need not even be written the Constitution for they are assumed to exist from the inception of humankind…(or else) the day would not be too far when all else would be lost not only for the present generation, but also for those to come – generations which stand to inherit nothing but parched earth incapable of sustaining life.

On stewardship, the faith and environmental communities have found common ground and common cause in urging governments to address climate change. Among the scores of signatories to the Interfaith Declaration on Climate Change, for example, are the Dalai Lama and Herman Daly, Greenpeace and the World Council of Churches, Bill McKibben and representatives of the Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Baha’i, Quaker, Buddhist and Hindu traditions.

Scientists, academics and religious leaders also have found common ground, expressed in the statement a group of leading religious and science leaders sent to President Bush and Congress in January 2007. One of the scientists, Harvard’s Eric Chivian, explained:

We (science and religious leaders) share a very deep reverence for life on earth, whether that life was created by God or evolved over billions of years, it exists, is sacred to all of us, and is being endangered by human activity. It doesn’t matter if we are liberals or conservatives, Darwinists or Creationists, we are all under the same atmosphere and drink the same water and will do everything we can to work together to solve these problems.

Last Thursday, the Secretary General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, addressed an eclectic gathering of religious leaders at Windsor Castle in London, telling them “you are the leaders who can have the largest, widest and deepest reach” in educating people about climate change. The Economist covered the meeting and reported:

People close to Mr. Ban say he is frustrated by the reluctance of politicians to stake political capital in next month’s Copenhagen meeting; perhaps spiritual leaders are his last hope.

Will morality or politics-as-usual prevail on the issue of global warming? In Congress, the fate of climate legislation is being played out in a contest between morality and money. That brings us back to money-changers in the temple of democracy.

The Center for Responsive Politics reports that 2,225 lobbyists from energy companies now are working the Hill to influence climate legislation, outnumbering environmental lobbyists nearly 5 to 1.  Spending by lobbyists is on record pace this year, with the oil, gas and utility industries outspending alternative energy industries 10 to 1. In other words, the dominant army of lobbyists represents companies that produce and burn carbon-intensive fuels, protecting their perceived right to pollute and to profit from it.

Meantime, new data from the Federal Election Commission indicates that oil and gas interests already have contributed $6.3 million to candidates for federal office in the 2010 election cycle, with the election still a year away. Electric utilities have contributed about the same; coal interests have contributed more than $850,000.  It’s safe to assume, I think, that the fossil energy sector is not hoping to elect a Congress that will favor a rapid transition away from the fossil-energy era.

Secular law makes this legal. In my opinion, moral law does not.

The climate debate in Congress is testing our morality as a nation, as well as the faith so many other people in the world have in the integrity of American leadership.  It’s a test we should not fail.  The members of Congress who don’t get this, don’t deserve to be there.

– Bill Becker

Reuters reports:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has sent its final proposal on whether carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions pose a danger to human health and welfare to the White House for review, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told Reuters on Monday.

The EPA’s final finding, if it follows the agency’s earlier assessment and is approved by the Office of Management and Budget, would allow the EPA to issue rules later to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, even if Congress fails to pass legislation to cut U.S. emissions of the heat-trapping gases that contribute to global warming.

For background, see New EPA rule will require use of best technologies to reduce greenhouse gases from large facilities when “constructed or significantly modified” — small businesses and farms exempt.

Here’s more:

“We sent the final proposal over to OMB on Friday,” Jackson said in an interview at her EPA headquarters’ office.

She said the OMB has up to 90 days to review the proposal, but the EPA would like a quicker timetable.

“We’ve briefed them a couple of times. So we’re hoping for an expedited review,” Jackson said.

Along with its final endangerment finding, the EPA also sent to OMB the agency’s final finding on whether cars and trucks “cause or contribute to that pollution,” Jackson said.

Such a finding would allow the federal government to regulate tailpipe emissions by increasing vehicle mileage requirement.

Jackson said the government is facing a “hard deadline” of next March to let automakers know of any required increases in fuel economy standards that would affect vehicles built for the 2012 model year.

It remains vital that the administration pursue this less-than-perfect approach in case Congress fails to pass the climate and clean energy bill.

Related Post:

• Murkowski amendment to undermine the Clean Air Act is dead — for now. Feinstein says “we can’t afford to bury our heads in the sand on climate change.”

Baucus insisted that the bill would cross the finish line, which would require both Senate passage and a successful conference with the House. “There’s no doubt that this Congress is going to pass climate change legislation,” he said. “I don’t know if it’s going to be this year. Probably next year.”

As I had noted last week, while the media was quick to jump over some seemingly negative statements from the Montana Senator, in fact it was clear from his words that Baucus will be voting for the final bill.

While many key moderates made clear they would not vote for the Boxer-Kerry bill that EPW voted out of Committee yesterday, everyone realizes that the process is going to start anew with Graham, Kerry, and Lieberman, who “will be working closely with the White House” to develop a separate bipartisan climate bill that can get 60 votes.

And contrary to some reporting, the EPW process has not undermined prospects for the new bipartisan bill:

Other moderate senators also said they would not reject voting for a climate and energy bill now that it is freed of the EPW Committee’s partisan gridlock.

“I presume that a lot is going to happen before then,” said Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), the ranking member of the Budget Committee.

“It’s not the end of the process,” added Budget Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.). “That’s just the beginning of the process. So there’s lots of time and lots of opportunity for everybody to engage.”

So Boxer delivered on her promise back in early February, as Greenwire reported (see “Breaking: Sen. Boxer makes clear U.S. won’t pass a climate bill this year“):

“Copenhagen is December,” Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) told reporters. “That’s why I said we’ll have a bill out of this committee by then.”

Ideally Kerry and Graham and Leiberman and the White House will flesh out the key details of the new bill by Copenhagen, ultimately leading to a successful Senate floor vote in February, and a bill on the president’s desk sometime in April.

Since 2001, the Senate has debated at least eight energy or global warming bills where there was no analysis by EPA, Congressional Budget Office or the Energy Information Administration completed in advance of Committee deliberations.

Our guest bloggers are Daniel J. Weiss, a Senior Fellow and the Director of Climate Strategy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, and energy team interns Jaren Love and Michael McGovern.  This is a Wonk Room repost.

Senate Republicans are demanding lengthy economic analyses of progressive clean energy policy, despite having spent careers voting for and against major energy legislation without such delay. This week the Republican members of the Environment and Public Works Committee boycotted its debate on the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (S. 1733), claiming that the Environmental Protection Agency’s analysis of the economic impacts was not sufficiently thorough. Before they launched their boycott, committee ranking member Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) and Sen. George Voinovich demanded a “full analysis” that satisfied their particular requirements:

As we’ve noted in previous letters and requests, getting a thorough, comprehensive economic analysis of the Kerry-Boxer bill is an essential component of a meaningful legislative process. To accomplish that, EPA needs to do a series of model runs examining key provisions in the bill, with a number of sensitivity analyses on critical issues, including, among others, the availability of offsets, potential growth in nuclear power, and the extent of emissions reductions by developing countries. Anything less than a full analysis of this kind will be unacceptable.

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), chair of the Senate Republican Conference, piled on: “We want to participate in any clean energy bill, but we’re not willing to do that until we know what it costs.”

“It undermines the credibility of the process,” said Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH). “It’s not constructive to the process to proceed without knowing what it costs.”

On Monday, senators Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) joined Inhofe to demand a “complete and substantive analysis of any bill that attempts to address this issue” and “complete data and a thorough vetting” before the EPW Committee took action.

Yesterday, senators Gregg, Susan Collins (R-ME), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) sent a letter to the EPA saying, “We cannot support legislation” without “a clear picture of the bill’s impacts on our economy,” saying the EPA analysis needs to be completed “prior to any action in EPW.”

Their arguments fall flat, however, because these and other senators routinely voted on energy and global warming bills without any analysis. Since 2001, the Senate has debated at least eight energy or global warming bills where there was no analysis by EPA, Congressional Budget Office or the Energy Information Administration completed in advance of Committee deliberations. In several cases, there was no full analysis before the bill was voted on by the entire Senate:

– Energy Policy Act of 2002 (H.R. 4): EIA and CBO analysis conducted after both committee passage and full Senate consideration.

– Climate Stewardship Act of 2003 (S. 139): EIA analysis conducted before full Senate consideration. No committee consideration.

– Energy Policy Act of 2003 (H.R. 4/S. 1005): EIA and CBO analysis conducted after committee passage. Limited CBO analysis completed before full Senate consideration, EIA analysis after.

– Climate Stewardship Act of 2005 (S. 342): No analysis conducted before full Senate consideration. No committee consideration.

– Energy Policy Act of 2005 (S. 10): CBO analysis completed after committee passage, before full Senate consideration.

– Energy Savings Act of 2007 (S. 1321): CBO analysis completed after committee passage, before full Senate consideration.

– America’s Climate Security Act of 2007 (S. 2191): EIA and EPA analysis completed after committee passage, before full Senate consideration.

– American Clean Energy Leadership Act of 2009 (S. 1462): CBO analysis completed after committee passage.

Sen. Murkowski notably had no problem voting for the American Clean Energy Leadership Act this June, even though CBO analysis was only completed in September.

The fact that these and other bills moved through committees without any analysis sharply contrasts with the mountain of assessments of this year’s clean energy legislation. Full EPA, EIA, and CBO analyses were conducted of the House bill, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454), and the EPA has conducted additional analysis of the Senate legislation. The Republicans’ interest in analysis is little more than an excuse for delay and defeat of clean energy legislation. In one of the boycotted hearings this week, Sen. Boxer noted that the “EPA has also indicated that this economic analysis reflects hundreds of thousands of pages of backup documentation” about the related House bill. Environmental Protection Agency Director of Congressional Affairs David McIntosh appeared before the Committee to reiterate that S. 1733 and H.R. 2454 were very similar:

[EPA economic] models are not designed to detect fine-grain details in this kind of legislation. So changes in the legislation at that level of detail will not even show up in the economic computer model. Second, it costs the EPA at least $135,000 and 1600 man-hours of time to run a bill through the agency’s full suite of economic computer models.

Nonetheless, Republican boycotters wanted EPA to spend five weeks and $135,000 of taxpayer money to conduct a redundant analysis before they would agree to a vote.

Today, the committee approved the Clean Energy Jobs Act on an 11-1 vote. Every Republican was absent without leave.

We think we have a good team here to help create a dual track which we want to emphasize is done with the full consent and support of Sen. Boxer and of other senators involved in this process including the Majority Leader, Harry Reid.  We will be working very, very closely with the administration and fully respectful of all of the efforts made by each individual committee with jurisdiction in this area. and there are six of them. I happen to be chair of one. But there are five others. And they’re all equally important in their contributions to this.

Our effort is to try to reach out to broaden the base of support beyond the six committees of jurisdiction. And we’re going to do that working very closely with the chairs of those committees as well as with members across the Senate. The key here is to really negotiate once in a sense, not negotiate with ourselves and not negotiate just in the Senate and then not have the White House also at the table.

So we just completed a meeting with Secretary Chu, talking about his department’s parameters that might and might not be acceptable with respect to this legislation. We’re meeting this afternoon, the three of us, with Secretary Salazar and with Carol Browner who, as we all know, is the point person for the White House on this topic. We will be working closely with the White House over the course of the next weeks with a few to trying to pull together what ultimately could be presented to Sen. Reid and the leadership as a piece of legislation that we hope could get the 60 votes necessary to pass or more, and we would hope it would be more.

Brad Johnson at Wonk Room has Graham’s remarkable remarks and this video:

While other Senate Republicans led by Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) boycott action on the climate crisis, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has chosen a leadership role. In a press conference today with Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), the author of the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Graham rebuked Republicans unwilling to address carbon pollution, asking, “If you can’t participate in solving a hard problem, why are you up here?” Saying that he has “seen the effects of a warming planet,” Graham called for the United States to “lead the world rather than follow the world on carbon pollution”:

The green economy is coming. We can either follow or lead. And those countries who follow will pay a price. Those nations who lead in creating the new green economy for the world will make money.

Graham’s words recall the testimony of former Center for American Progress Senior Fellow and White House official Van Jones, who told Congress in January, “We can build a green economy Dr. King would be proud of.” Van Jones, the founder of Green for All, left the White House after talk show host Glenn Beck targeted him as an “avowed communist and radical activist.” Beck has warned that efforts to build a green economy are “socialism,” “black nationalism,” and “fascism.”

Sen. Kerry announced that the three senators would work in a “dual track” to the committee process now underway to craft clean energy legislation in concert with the White House, which they hope to present directly to the Senate leadership. The senators conducted the press conference in between meetings with Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, and White House climate advisor Carol Browner.

Graham also discussed how Americans of any party “really feel uncomfortable with the fact that our nation sends a billion dollars a day overseas to buy foreign oil from some countries who don’t like us very much,” saying that part of “this initiative is to create a vision for energy independence and marry it up with a responsible climate control carbon pollution controls and create a new economy.”

Graham emphasized that his vision is to “help this planet” that “is in peril, create millions of new jobs for Americans that need them, and to become energy independent to make us safer,” because he believes that “controlling carbon pollution is good business.” Although he hoped for participation from his fellow Republicans, he said, “If you believe carbon pollution is not a problem, then you wouldn’t want to work with me, because I do.”

Transcript:

GRAHAM: The reason I’ve gotten involved in this issue is I see kind of a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity politically to solve two real problems that I think the country and the world faces. One, carbon pollution. I am no scientist, but I’ve traveled throughout the world with Sen. McCain and others and seen the effects of a warming planet. And I do believe all of the cars we have on the roads, and the trucks, and all the energy we use that produces carbon daily is not a good thing for the planet.

But if environmental policy is not good business policy, you’ll never get 60 votes. So my goal is to try to make sure that we fashion environmental policy that will create millions of new jobs for Americans who are desiring to have new jobs. Virginia and New Jersey are going to benefit from what we do. South Carolina, Connecticut, and Massachusetts will benefit.

The green economy is coming. We can either follow or lead. And those countries who follow will pay a price. Those nations who lead in creating the new green economy for the world will make money. The business community senses an opportunity they’ve not had before. That’s why they’re at least exploring the possibility of a new pathway forward.

I’ve been told by a lot of business leaders in South Carolina, “Senator Graham, once you price carbon in a reasonable way, this green economy that we’re hoping for really will begin to flourish.”

The other aspect of why I’m involved is energy independence. Remember “Drill here, drill now”? Where did that go? Four dollar a gallon gas is not in our face but it could be soon. I think most Americans — Republicans, independents or Democrats — really feel uncomfortable with the fact that our nation sends a billion dollars a day overseas to buy foreign oil from some countries who don’t like us very much. Part of this initiative is to create a vision for energy independence and marry it up with a responsible climate control carbon pollution controls and create a new economy.

Finally, our country doesn’t have a vision on carbon. We need one. And we need to lead the world rather than follow the world on carbon pollution. Our country doesn’t have the infrastructure in place to build a green economy and never will until we price carbon.

And our country doesn’t have a vision for energy independence. We need one. Our goal is to create that vision that not only will help this planet — that I think is in peril — but create millions of new jobs for Americans that need them, and to become energy independent to make us safer.

. . .

What I’ve got to do is convince people in South Carolina and our colleagues up here as a whole that environmental policy will be good business policy. And if Congress doesn’t act, the EPA will.

Every member of Congress, Republicans included, has to answer to themselves and their constituents. Is carbon pollution a problem? If it is, what are you going to do about it? Some Republicans want a carbon tax. In many ways, that is a fairer system but I don’t think there are the votes for it. If you believe carbon pollution is not a problem, then you wouldn’t want to work with me, because I do. Now, if you … a cap-and-trade bill has to be well-crafted not to put us at competitive disadvantage to China and India.

I am convinced with my colleagues that controlling carbon pollution is good business. If you do it right, people can make money and you’ll have a cleaner planet and the world will follow. So I hope my Republican colleagues will at least listen, come to the table as the Chamber has, see where we’re going, give us input and if at the end of the day, you can’t support it, that’s okay.

But last thought. Doing nothing has a consequence. The EPA will do something. Doing nothing has a consequence to our business opportunity in leading the green economy revolution that’s coming and controlling carbon emissions.

So I think most people are upset with the Congress because we’re not doing anything that matters. And the things that we do do we’re overdoing. So we’re trying to get that sweet spot of a bill that will be good for the environment, good for business and make us energy independent.

So my hope is that participation is seen as a positive, not a negative. If you can’t participate in solving a hard problem, why are you up here?