Climate Q&A: Why oppose legislation to help Missouri?
Editor’s note: Three area professors recently met with the News-Leader editorial board to stress their common view that climate change creates economic and biological dangers. We decided to pass some of their questions to area lawmakers on the federal level, and the lawmakers have chosen to answer for publication three questions each. Today is the third installment.
U.S. Sen. Christopher “Kit” Bond said: For years I have urged my colleagues in Congress to adopt a common-sense energy policy that provides more American energy – our energy policy should be good for American families and workers, not the foreign oil cartels or oil speculators.
That’s why spurring home-grown Missouri clean energy solutions is one of my highest priorities. I am proud that Missouri life scientists are leading the way with new cellulosic biofuels and innovations with woody biomass, both of which I supported with federal funding.
Similarly, I support new clean technology for coal-fired power plants on which Missouri depends, such as the Springfield carbon capture and storage project that I helped jump start with a federal earmark. I also support building on Missouri’s traditional battery leadership with new innovations in lithium batteries and hybrid- and all-electric vehicles. I would also love to have plentiful carbon-free electricity from a new nuclear plant in Missouri.
All of these efforts create jobs for Missouri, increase our energy independence, and lower our carbon emissions. What I do not support is punishing Missouri families and workers with the higher energy taxes and lost jobs that will come from carbon cap and tax proposals such as the Waxman-Markey and Kerry-Lieberman climate bills.
I am especially opposed to inflicting pain and hardship on Missouri when EPA tells us these proposals would not even produce a measurable change in world temperatures because China and India are refusing to join us with their own carbon cuts. Raising taxes, killing jobs and making consumers suffer may be a policy solution for California and East Coast liberals, but they are no solution for Missouri.
U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill said: I think most Americans would agree we have to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources, and producing energy from alternative sources and increasing energy efficiency is key to making this a reality. Missouri definitely has tremendous capacity to produce alternative energy, like that produced by wind and biofuels. I have supported, and continue to fight for, numerous tax credits to help bolster the production of renewable energy from crop sources in Missouri. As part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, commonly referred to as the stimulus, we created new tax credits and bolstered existing weatherization programs to incentivize businesses and homeowners to increase their energy efficiency. These projects are happening in Missouri right now and they are helping reduce energy bills and consumption for Missouri’s families and businesses. With the growing energy demands in this country, we need to continue pursuing new solutions as well. We have to continue exploring and investing in new technology and new ideas from cellulosic biofuels to clean coal technologies. The alternative energy sector can be a great boon for Missouri’s economy, bringing manufacturing jobs and dollars back to the state.
Questions were drafted by biology professors Alexander Wait, Ph.D., Missouri State University; and Wendy Anderson, Ph.D., Drury University; and economics associate professor Terrel Gallaway, Ph.D., MSU. If you have a question on this subject you would like us to pass to the lawmakers, e-mail Editorial Page Editor Dave Iseman, diseman@news-leader.com.
Question: Missourians spend billions of dollars every year to buy coal, oil and gas from other states and foreign countries. Missouri has the skilled workforce and the natural resources to create homegrown energy right here in our state. Why do you oppose legislation that would create local jobs and revenues in Missouri, increase energy independence, and limit our vulnerability to inevitable price spikes for oil, gas and coal?
U.S. Rep. Roy Blunt said: I’ve always been for more American energy. We rely far too heavily on foreign energy and that’s why I’ve long been a cosponsor of the American Energy Act. This bill would invest in alternate technologies like solar power, biofuels and nuclear. Meanwhile it would renew our commitment to American energy resources that generations of Washington Democrats have succeeded in putting off-limits over the past 30 years, such as responsible shallow off-shore drilling and the Arctic Coastal Plain in Alaska. The American Energy Act also recognizes that coal, which is where Missouri gets more than 80 percent of our energy, will be a part of our energy equation for years to come. Drastically raising the price of energy in Missouri is a recipe for disaster in our state’s economy. I’m not sure which local jobs you’re referring to here, but the job-killing cap-and-tax bill I voted against in the House would have cost Missouri at least 32,000 jobs in the first year alone. It would raise the cost of energy on Missouri families by $2,700 a year. This is a big difference between my opponent and me in the U.S. Senate campaign. She supports this job-killing tax increase, I oppose this tax and instead support a comprehensive energy policy that includes responsibly finding more domestic supply, using less energy at home and investing in the future.
