Find Out the Answer
take action NOW 
watch youtube videos 

Archive for October, 2009

« Older Entries

New Study: US Jobs, Economic Growth Tied to Affordable, Reliable North American Energy

Friday, October 30th, 2009

As Senate ratchets up global warming debate, policymakers should work to strengthen US-Canadian energy partnership

Cap-and-trade, health care reform, financial regulatory overhaul – the list of measures being considered on Capitol Hill right now might seem disparate to you, but advocates of each continue to claim that adoption of their respective policy will deliver one important thing of which the American people are currently in desperate need: Jobs. And lots of them.

But setting aside the question of how carbon rations or public options will actually add workers back to US payrolls, a new study out of Canada suggests that thousands of new jobs and billions of dollars in additional GDP are staring US policymakers right in the face – and it doesn’t require a federal takeover of the American economy to produce them.

Such is the key lesson communicated in a report by the non-profit Canadian Energy Research Institute (CERI) this month, a study that takes a thorough, quantitative look at how our continued partnership with Canada and its abundant supplies of secure, affordable energy can single-handedly create more than 300,000 high-wage jobs in the US, and more than $42 billion in annual GDP.

Among the other important considerations that CERI experts found in their analysis:

  • As investment and production in oil sands ramps up in Canada, the pace of economic activity quickens and demand for US goods and services increase rapidly, resulting in an estimated 343 thousand new US jobs between 2011 and 2015.

 

  • Demand for US goods and services continues to climb throughout the period, adding an estimated $34 billion to US GDP in 2015, $40.4 billion in 2020, and $42.2 billion in 2025.

 

  • The increase in output of goods and services from various US industrial sectors due to the development and production of Canadian oil sands. On average, US output of goods and services increases by $62 billion per year over the period of analysis, 2009- 2025.

 

  • Access to new energy means the increased production of heavy trucks in the US that are used to transport the oil-bearing sand.

Currently, Canada delivers more than 2.5 million barrels of secure, affordable energy to American consumers every day, helping keep gas prices stable for families, consumers, business and manufacturers. But the foundation of this strong North American trading partnership would be eroded if Congress enacts a nationwide Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS). And though its name might not indicate otherwise, an LCFS effectively seeks to do one thing: block Canada’s oil from crossing the US border, even if it means shutting the door on jobs, revenue, security and opportunity in the process.

While word this week from the Bureau of Economic Analysis that the American economy picked up a couple percentage points of growth last quarter is welcome news, policymakers in Washington need to realize that an LCFS would not only increase prices at the pump for American consumers and deepen our dangerous dependence on foreign energy, it could also prevent the creation of thousands of American jobs that now, more than ever, could be used as momentum for a broad-based economic recovery.

The CERI study makes those facts plain, and it even breaks down the numbers for us on a state-by-state basis. Based on projections that the production of Canadian oil sands increases from nearly 1.4 million barrels a day to about 4 million barrel by 2025, CERI researchers found that:

  • [US] Employment increases across the county with some of the largest impacts occurring in California (43 thousand jobs created between 2011 and 2015), Florida (20 thousand jobs created between 2011 and 2015), and Texas (27 thousand jobs created between 2011 and 2015). These US jobs are created by the indirect and induced impacts of Canadian oil sands development and production.

 

  • Due to the deep and rich trading relationship between Canada and the United States, the US derives significant economic benefits from this increased economic activity across many sectors throughout the United States. The benefits manifest themselves in terms of increased economic output, GDP and job creation. In addition, the US benefits from a stable supply of oil, something not considered by the report but critically important to US energy security.

Facing the worst recession since World War II, with national unemployment on the doorstep of 10 percent, this study represents yet another reason why Congress needs to resist adding an LCFS to current climate legislation. Sure, it’d be loser for America’s security. Sure, it wouldn’t do a thing to reduce global carbon emissions. But in this climate, jobs are king. And an LCFS is a failsafe way to lose them by the truckload.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Action Alerts | No Comments »

Energy Security 101: University Profs Highlight the Importance Oils Sands, Unconventional Energy Forms

Tuesday, October 27th, 2009

As the Senate kicks off hearings today on cap-and-trade, university professors from Oklahoma to Illinois are taking to the opinion pages of local newspapers to lay out, chapter-and-verse, commonsense solutions that will help put the nation on a path toward affordable and reliable energy security.

Chief among their suggestions – rooted in straightforward academic analysis, not politics – was that the US must embrace all forms of energy, especially affordable and reliable reserves right here in our own backyard.

C. John Mann, geology professor (emeritus) at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, writes this in a column entitled “Nation must use oil from unconventional sources” in today’s Springfield State Journal-Register, the Land of Lincoln’s oldest newspaper:

If the Obama administration is really interested in reducing U.S. reliance on foreign energy supplies, then it should recognize the value and validity of unconventional oil made from liquefied coal, Canadian oil sands and Western oil shale.

Using these vast resources to meet America’s energy needs would be a boon for U.S. consumers and this country’s energy security. And everyone would benefit from well-paying jobs and revenue that come from producing, processing and refining liquefied coal and oil sands.

A recent decision by the U.S. State Department to support oil-sands production offers at least a glimmer of foresight and flexibility.

Canada’s oil sands formations hold an estimated 173 billion barrels of recoverable oil, making Canada second only to Saudi Arabia in the size of its reserves. The International Energy Agency has said that with future advances in technology as much as 1.7 trillion barrels of Canadian oil sands could be extracted.

Despite protests from environmental groups, the State Department approved a permit for a 1,000-mile-long pipeline that would carry oil from Canada’s oil sands formations in northern Alberta to refineries on Lake Superior in Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper pipeline will be capable of carrying 800,000 barrels per day of crude oil, shoring up Canada’s position as America’s No. 1 source of foreign oil.

Mann emphasizes the economic and national security risks associated with hampering supplies of affordable and reliable Canadian energy from reaching American consumers, which would be required under a national, one-size-fits-all low-carbon fuel standard (LCFS):

California and Oregon have banned use of oil sands, oil shale and liquefied coal, and several northeastern states reportedly plan to follow suit. At the same time, the U.S. House of Representatives is considering legislation that would impose a national ban in the guise of a low-carbon fuel standard. House members who are pushing for its passage seem heedless of economic consequences.

Quite simply, lawmakers should steer clear of regulations that discriminate between conventional and unconventional fuel sources, as they would exacerbate energy security problems without delivering compensating climate benefits. Imposing greater costs on oil sands producers and the liquefied coal sector will only benefit OPEC and would have little impact on reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. Given this country’s increasing rate of unemployment, we can ill-afford to turn our back on unconventional fuels.

The geology professor closes strongly with this:

As the administration works with Congress to develop energy policies, those who shape legislation need to wake up and realize that our country cannot afford to forego the use of unconventional oil. A misguided push to prevent its use can only succeed in undermining our economy.

And David Deming, a University of Oklahoma geologist and associate professor of arts and sciences, writes this in The Oklahoman under the headline “Plenty of oil out there”:

North America contains huge unconventional petroleum resources in the form of tar sands and oil shale. The western U.S. alone is capable of producing at least 2 trillion barrels of petroleum from oil shale. At a current U.S. annual consumption rate of 7 billion barrels, that represents a 286-year supply of oil, none of which would be imported. The value of this resource is $120 trillion, 10 times the size of the national debt.

We should follow Canada’s example. Starting in the 1960s, Canada began to aggressively develop its tar sand resources. As a result, Canadian production is now more than a million barrels per day, and its oil reserves are the second-largest in the world.

Oil is the lifeblood of our industrial economy. The U.S. economy will remain stagnant and depressed until we begin to aggressively develop our native energy resources. We have the technology to produce petroleum from oil shale in a manner that is efficient, economic and environmentally friendly. What’s stopping us is ignorance and bad public policy.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Blog | 1 Comment »

As the Senate Gears Up on Climate Change, LCFS Sure to Surface

Monday, October 26th, 2009

Late last Friday evening, Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) released the latest update (known in Washington as the “chairman’s mark”) to their sweeping global warming legislation, announcing “the carbon allocation winners” prior to this week’s Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearings on the bill.

According to the Wall Street Journal:

The proposal by Ms. Boxer, of California, and Mr. Kerry, of Massachusetts, is likely to go through several iterations, as lawmakers seek to gain enough support to pass the measure on the Senate floor.

As was the case in the US House, many expect this comprehensive bill to change in a number of ways relative to its original version. That includes the possibility of the authors clearing some space for a low-carbon fuel standard (LCFS), effectively blocking Canadian oil from reaching US consumers.

Canada’s sands represent the largest crude oil reserves outside of the Middle East, and help meet nearly 20 percent of the US’s daily energy needs. Cutting off affordable North American energy supplies would only deepen our dependence on some of the most unstable regions of the world. This is not only bad policy, but it also runs counter to President Obama’s stated energy goals, too.

In fact, recently Tony Podesta, the one-time Clinton White House chief of staff and informal Obama environmental advisor, discussed an LCFS with The Globe and Mail:

“I think a low-carbon fuel standard is probably in the offing.” As an early proponent of California’s low-carbon fuel standard Mr. Podesta also said the Canadian oil sands would still be penalized heavily under a federal fuel regulation, which he expects to be eventually adopted.

President Obama even sponsored LCFS legislation while serving in the Senate, leading many observers to believe Congress may eventually pass a national, one-size-fits-all fuel mandate.

Major news organizations and independent research experts are taking notice of this threat to consumers, too. Today, Wall Street Journal’s Keith Johnson writes this about a new report by energy consultants Wood Mackenzie:

Cap-and-trade legislation will cost U.S. refiners about $100 billion a year by 2015 and put them at a competitive disadvantage to refiners in Europe.

There’s another irony to the climate legislation, Wood Mac notes: While it would hit refiners hard, it doesn’t seem that it would actually do much to reduce U.S. demand for oil products. “The impact of the higher fuel costs (projected for the near term) is not anticipated to have a material impact on oil product demand, with other legislative measures (auto fleet efficiency and Low Carbon Fuels Standards) being much more significant,” the report concludes.

As the U.S. Senate begins debate on climate change legislation tomorrow, American consumers who oppose higher fuel costs and favor North American energy over foreign imports should send a loud message to Congress that an LCFS is wrong for our security and for our pocketbooks.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Blog | No Comments »

Another Week, Another Energy Expert in Another VA Paper Highlighting LCFS Threats

Wednesday, October 21st, 2009

Last week, Rear Admiral [Ret.] James J. Carey took to the pages of the Richmond Times-Dispatch to underscore the national security threats posed by a nationwide, one-size-fits-all low carbon fuel standard (LCFS). As you may recall, Adm. Carey writes this in his column “LCFS: A Great Blow to American Security”:

Of all the current and future components of the Senate cap-and-trade bill, no provision stands at greater odds with that imperative than an infrequently mentioned policy proposal known as the Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS). Added initially to the House’s version of cap-and-trade, some in Congress are chafing for its inclusion in the Senate version expected to be debated later this fall. If successfully added, an LCFS would initiate a direct and systematic assault on the energy and economic security of this nation.

An LCFS, if passed, would erode our present situation even more than it currently is. And it would render our country, and those who both live in it and have spent their lives defending it, less secure as a result.

And over the weekend, Consumer Energy Alliance’s vice president Michael Whatley – a low carbon fuel standard expert – penned a column in the Hampton Roads Daily Press. Under the headline “Low-carbon fuel standards would cost Virginians,” Whatley writes this:

The Western refinery in Yorktown is situated on some of the most patriotic real estate in the country. You don’t need me to run through the history; you know what was won there, what was forever lost, and what sort of mission-critical infrastructure it — and the entire Hampton Roads area — supports today.

But would you believe that most of the oil processed at the Yorktown facility comes from Brazil? Of course, there’s nothing inherently wrong with that — Brazil is one of America’s closest trading partners. We’re so close, in fact, that President Barack Obama’s national security adviser announced this summer that the U.S. government would be investing $10 billion in Brazil’s offshore energy exploration program.

Unfortunately, a new policy being advanced in Congress known as the low-carbon fuel standard (LCFS) threatens to cut off a critical energy supply source that Virginians — both civilian and military — depend on for high-quality, affordable fuel. Brazilian crude doesn’t have any more carbon in it than other forms of oil. It doesn’t emit more carbon dioxide when refined into gasoline and used in our engines. But it does take a bit more energy to bring to market. And if you’re a proponent of an LCFS, that’s grounds for immediate exile.

Whatley adds this:

Most Americans have never heard of an LCFS — and that’s the way it will stay, if all goes according to plan. With all the attention being paid right now to cap-and-trade, advocates are hoping that the marquee isn’t big enough to include a statement on the perils of an LCFS.

But now you know: An LCFS means higher prices at the pump, fewer good-paying jobs for Virginians, and expanded dependence on foreign, unstable regimes for the energy we need to run this country.

Secure Our Fuels is continuing its public outreach and educational efforts as the Senate moves forward with its consideration of global warming legislation. In fact, this week radio advertisements began running in Tennessee urging voters and concerned citizens to contact US Senator Lamar Alexander – who has long supported an LCFS, but appears recently to be rethinking his stance – and ask him to oppose a job-killing low carbon fuel mandate that would weaken our energy security and increase our dangerous dependence on unstable regions of the world for our energy.

Here is the script of that ad, which can be heard by clicking HERE:

In international news, Communist China continues to buy up North American energy reserves. China is already working with Cuba to drill just 90 miles off our coast, and has now inked a deal to secure vast supplies of Canadian oil – oil that could have come to the U.S.

China is buying all the North American energy it can get. Remarkably, our own Congress appears to be in on the deal – pushing a Low-Carbon Fuel Standard that can ban Canadian oil from crossing our border, making it easier for China to buy up to 2 million barrels per day from our own backyard.

A Low-Carbon Fuel Standard would increase our dependence on foreign regimes, and reward China with even more access to North American supplies. What’s Congress thinking?

Call Senator Alexander at 615-736-5129. Tell him to oppose Low-Carbon Fuel Standards and fight for North American energy security.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Blog | 1 Comment »

Dial It Up: CEA On Air in Tenn. Explaining Real Consequences of LCFS

Monday, October 19th, 2009

New statewide radio campaign seeks to educate Tennesseans on perils of a nationwide Low-Carbon Fuel Standard

WASHINGTON – Efforts to add a Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) to the Senate cap-and-trade bill would weaken America’s national security and divert secure, North American energy resources to China – a message hundreds of thousands of Tennesseans will hear over the next two weeks in a new statewide radio advertisement spot produced by Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA).

“Though they might not know it, a good bit of the refined gasoline and diesel products that Tennesseans rely on every day to get to and from home, work and school is derived from sources of energy targeted for elimination under an LCFS,” said David Holt, president of CEA. “Couple that reality with the fact that an LCFS would allow competitors like China to lay claim to secure energy resources previously earmarked for U.S. consumers, resulting in lost American jobs and higher prices at the pump, and you start to see just how devastating this policy would be for America’s economic and national security.”

The 60-second ad, which went up today and will appear statewide over the next two weeks, comes in advance of an anticipated markup of climate legislation in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW), likely to happen before the chamber’s Thanksgiving Recess. U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) is a member of EPW.

The script is included below; an electronic version can be downloaded HERE.

In international news, Communist China continues to buy up North American energy reserves. China is already working with Cuba to drill just 90 miles off our coast, and has now inked a deal to secure vast supplies of Canadian oil – oil that could have come to the U.S.

China is buying all the North American energy it can get. Remarkably, our own Congress appears to be in on the deal – pushing a Low-Carbon Fuel Standard that can ban Canadian oil from crossing our border, making it easier for China to buy up to 2 million barrels per day from our own backyard.

A Low-Carbon Fuel Standard would increase our dependence on foreign regimes, and reward China with even more access to North American supplies. What’s Congress thinking?

Call Senator Alexander at 615-736-5129. Tell him to oppose Low-Carbon Fuel Standards and fight for North American energy security.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Action Alerts | No Comments »

Ret. Rear Admiral: LCFS would initiate a “direct and systematic assault on the energy and economic security of this nation”

Thursday, October 15th, 2009

Unlike the weather many folks are experiencing throughout the US, the debate over climate change legislation continues to heat up in Congress. As such, some supporters claim that inaction on climate change would threaten our national security – perhaps most notably the cap-and-trade bill’s chief sponsor in the Senate, John Kerry (D-MA).

In fact, in a Politico article earlier this week under the headline “Tying climate change to nat’l security,” reporter Lisa Lerer quoted the Bay State’s senior senator:

“Fundamentally, this bill is about keeping Americans safe,” said Kerry. “Unless we act decisively, climate change could become a threat multiplier, a lit match on the kindling of an already dangerous world.”

And while these claims and assertions can be argued, debated and analyzed ad nauseum, many other energy and military experts are speaking out about a proposal that may be added to the cap-and-trade bill that would deliver a major blow to the US’s national security.

Known as a low carbon fuel standard, an LCFS and would effectively block Canadian oil and other forms of heavy crude oils from reaching US consumers. Cutting off affordable North American energy supplies would deepen our dependence on some of the most unstable regions of the world, whose fuels would be given an advantage under this mandate.

But this national, one-size-fits-all mandate – that would force us to turn our backs on our North American allies and their energy – is being exposed for the national security threat that it represents in major newspapers nationally and internationally.

In today’s Richmond Times-Dispatch, Rear Admiral [Ret.] James J. Carey wrote this in a column entitled “LCFS: A Great Blow to American Security”:

As the debate over climate policy in Congress has evolved over the past few months, proponents of a policy that seeks to ration the amount and type of energy available to the American people have come to recognize their success in selling this plan will depend on whether they can make the case that raising the cost of energy here at home will somehow strengthen our security position around the world.

Of all the current and future components of the Senate cap-and-trade bill, no provision stands at greater odds with that imperative than an infrequently mentioned policy proposal known as the Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS). Added initially to the House’s version of cap-and-trade, some in Congress are chafing for its inclusion in the Senate version expected to be debated later this fall. If successfully added, an LCFS would initiate a direct and systematic assault on the energy and economic security of this nation.

An LCFS, if passed, would erode our present situation even more than it currently is. And it would render our country, and those who both live in it and have spent their lives defending it, less secure as a result.

Admiral Carey’s words closely align with what Canadian Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt told Reuters earlier this week. In an article entitled “Canada oil sands help U.S. energy security,” Raitt said this about the consequences associated with an LCFS:

“Canada’s oil sands are an incredibly important part of energy security for the United States,” Raitt told Reuters at a carbon capture and storage (CCS) conference in London.

“If you don’t purchase from Canada, who are you going to purchase from? It’s going to be more reliance on OPEC nations,” she said.

“The government will be involved in the promotion of the oil sands … it is a great asset, it is imperative to energy security in North America and it is being developed in a responsible manner and will continue to do so,” Raitt said.

As this debate moves forward, and the facts continue to surface that an LCFS would weaken our national security and raise costs for American consumers, minds will continue to change.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Blog | 1 Comment »

Ambassador Jacobson, Envoy Must Work to Strengthen Critical Energy Partnership with US

Thursday, October 15th, 2009

This week, Ambassador David Jacobson, the US’s top diplomat in Canada, along with an envoy from Washington, traveled to Alberta to see firsthand how our North American trading partners safely produce oil sands in Alberta. Canada’s sands represent the largest crude oil reserves outside of the Middle East, and help meet nearly 20 percent of the US’s daily energy needs.

Ambassador Jacobson’s visit to Alberta should serve as an opportunity to strengthen our critical energy trading partnership with Canada. While some in Washington are working to pass a nationwide low-carbon fuel mandate, which would effectively restrict Canada’s abundant and secure energy supplies from reaching American consumers, national leaders – including Ambassador Jacobson – have a responsibility to ensure that our nation has access to stable and affordable energy resources.

However, a low carbon fuel standard would not only weaken this critical North American relationship, but it would also deepen our energy dependence on unstable regions of the world, whose fuels are favored under such a mandate.

In an article entitled “New U.S. ambassador to Canada in Alberta to visit oilsands”, the Calgary Herald’s Jason Markusoff and Shaun Polczer reported this yesterday, which was encouraging:

“I understand the importance of the oilsands,” Jacobson said. “I understand the importance of that oil.”

Leaders at the State Department have acted prudently in seeing that the Alberta Clipper project continues to move forward, which will increase our stable energy supplies, our national security and help to create good-paying jobs. With hope, Ambassadors Jacobson’s envoy to Alberta this week will only build upon that success.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Blog | No Comments »

CEA to EPW: Addition of LCFS to Climate Bill Would “Erode” U.S. Security

Wednesday, October 14th, 2009

As Senate cap-and-trade proponents shift message campaign to focus on “national security,” CEA reminds lawmakers that a Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) would make America less secure

HOUSTON – With the introduction last week of climate legislation in the Senate, and confirmation this week that hearings on the bill will commence later this month, Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA) president David Holt sent a letter to the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee today, asking the members of the panel to fully consider the economic and security-related consequences of adding a Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) provision to the text.

Holt issued the following statement after formally sending the letter to Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Ranking Member James Inhofe (R-Okla.), and the remaining 11 Democrats and six Republicans on the committee:

“As proponents of cap-and-trade continue to make a collective and concerted effort to emphasize the plan’s impact on American security, it’s important they know the inclusion of an LCFS title in this bill would turn those messaging points on their head. Fundamentally, an LCFS would initiate a unilateral ban on accessing secure, affordable energy supplies available on our continent – all without doing a thing to address carbon emissions. The letter we sent to the committee today makes that point clear, and more thoroughly describes the extent to which America’s security would be eroded if an LCFS is signed into law.”

NOTE: Click HERE to view this letter.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Action Alerts | 1 Comment »

Canadian Resource Minister to US: LCFS Would Lead to “More Reliance on OPEC Nations”

Tuesday, October 13th, 2009

As the Senate continues work on its climate change legislation, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), chief co-sponsor of the bill and the powerful chairwoman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, told the Associated Press this week that “it’s possible Congress will pass a bill aimed at slowing global warming before international talks on a deal to limit climate change in Copenhagen in December.”

And while the draft climate change legislation does not contain a low-carbon fuel standard (LCFS) mandate, this proposal – which would effectively ban our nation’s most affordable and reliable energy forms from reaching American consumers – continues to grab headlines.

In yesterday’s Globe and Mail, one of Canada’s largest newspapers, reporter Shawn McCarthy conducted an in-depth analysis on Consumer Energy Alliance’s efforts to raise public awareness about the threats an LCFS poses to consumers. Under the headline “U.S. advocates for oil sands tout security of supply,” McCarthy – who interviewed CEA president David Holt – wrote this:

For its part, the Consumer Energy Alliance has launched a public relations and media blitz that directly challenges the environmentalists’ attacks on the Canadian oil sands.

The campaign is part of an aggressive, multi-pronged effort by the oil industry – backed by other leading business organizations – to oppose the climate-change agenda favoured by President Barack Obama as well as the Democratic leadership, and even some Republicans, in Congress.

The Consumer Energy Alliance is leading the fight against the low-carbon fuel standard (LCFS), the most direct assault on the oil sands to emerge in the U.S. debate.

It recently sent a letter to U.S. National Security Adviser Jim Jones, urging him to protect American strategic interests by ensuring there are no impediments to the flow of Canadian oil across the border.

In the letter, Alliance president David Holt said Americans have long expected to import the bulk of the additional supply generated by oil sands expansion, and that it is a critical secure source of energy. “News of China’s involvement in the development of those resources, coupled with renewed talk of constructing an east-west pipeline for exportation of this oil to Asia, casts serious doubt on that expectation,” Mr. Holt wrote.

“So too does the advancement of a nationwide LCFS policy in Congress – which, if enacted, would deny millions of Americans access to Canadian energy without materially affecting global emissions of greenhouse gases.”

Holt is quoted saying this about a low carbon fuel standard:

“It would actually increase imports into the United States from nations that don’t necessarily have our interests at heart and certainly aren’t our good friends.”

The Globe and Mail report also highlights the series of radio and television CEA has run in an effort to educate the public on threats associated with an LCFS:

A federal low-carbon fuel standard – similar to one passed by California – would block access to Canadian oil sands, killing the refinery and the accompanying jobs, while increasing gasoline prices for motorists, the ads say.

Other major news outlets are weighing the facts of an LCFS, too. Today, Daniel Fineren of Reuters, under the headline “Canada oil sands help U.S. energy security,” reported this:

Several U.S. states are considering introducing low carbon fuel standards which would make fuels that emit the highest levels of climate-warming carbon dioxide more expensive.

U.S. President Barack Obama has expressed support for the idea but his administration has not taken a tough stance against carbon-intensive Canadian oil sands.

Fineren underscores Canadian Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt’s expert opinion on what an LCFS would mean to US energy security, as well:

“Canada’s oil sands are an incredibly important part of energy security for the United States,” Raitt told Reuters at a carbon capture and storage (CCS) conference in London.

“If you don’t purchase from Canada, who are you going to purchase from? It’s going to be more reliance on OPEC nations,” she said.

“The government will be involved in the promotion of the oil sands … it is a great asset, it is imperative to energy security in North America and it is being developed in a responsible manner and will continue to do so,” Raitt said.

As the Senate continues to wrestle with details, carve-outs and amendments to its global warming bill, American consumers – and their elected officials in Washington – should take Minister Raitt’s word to heart: an LCFS would deepen our nation’s dependence on unstable regimes to power our economy.

Send Congress a loud and clear message that North American energy should not be discriminated against to favor oil from Nigeria, Libya and other unfriendly regions of the world.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Blog | 1 Comment »

Seeing the Light: Sen. Alexander Now “Basically Undecided” on LCFS Mandate

Monday, October 12th, 2009

U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander, the third-ranking Republican and senior senator from Tennessee, has not been reserved in demonstrating support for a nationwide, one-size-fits-all low carbon full standard (LCFS).

As recently as July, “[Sen. Alexander] called for a low-carbon fuel standard, which he argues would not raise the price of gasoline.”

And earlier that month, according to a Grist.org report, “Alexander wants Congress to put in place a ‘low-carbon fuel standard,’ which he said would ‘not deliberately raise the price of gasoline.’”

In June, the senator said that “A low-carbon fuel standard I think makes a lot of sense for our country in dealing with carbon.”

But the nature of his support for this job-killing legislation appears to have shifted — thanks in large part to an uproar of mounting opposition from within his own state. In fact, according to today’s Knoxville News Sentinel, Senator Alexander “basically is undecided on the proposed [LCFS] policy.” The Tennessean and the Nashville Post picked this article up, too.

Under the headline “Letter inspires Alexander to rethink stance on fuel standards,” Tom Humphrey reports this:

Sen. Lamar Alexander says a letter from state Rep. Susan Lynn inspired a “good conversation” between the two over his stance on low-carbon fuel standards.

In her letter earlier this month, Lynn, R-Mount Juliet, said the proposal could be “categorized as a misguided effort to improve the environment.”

Alexander has been quoted as saying the low-carbon fuel standard “makes a lot of sense.”

The letter from state Rep. Susan Lynn to the senator referenced in the Knoxville News Sentinel article was highlighted by the Wall Street Journal last week. In a post by Keith Johnson under the headline “Tennessee Pols to Lamar Alexander: Forget About Low-Carbon Fuel Standards,” the Journal reported this, which was quickly picked up by The Tennessean and the Nashville Post:

[Tennessee] State Rep. Susan Lynn fired off a letter last Friday chiding Sen. Alexander for even flirting with [an LCFS]; Sen. Alexander has repeatedly said that such a standard could help the environment without raising energy prices. “At its core, a [low carbon fuel standard] would initiate a direct ban on the importation of some of our most secure and affordable sources of energy,” she wrote. “It would necessarily expand America’s already dangerous dependence on foreign, unstable energy from suppliers half-a-world away…”

Other Tennessee news outlets have been closely following this development, as well. The Chattanooga Times Free Press’s Matt Wilson reported this over the weekend:

In an Oct. 2 letter to the senator, state Rep. Susan Lynn, R-Mount Juliet, asked Sen. Alexander to oppose a “low-carbon fuel standard,” despite the senator’s assertions that such a standard “makes a lot of sense for our country.” The standard would reduce carbon emissions from motor fuels.

Rep. Lynn said the standard “would reduce the availability of the fuel by limiting the amount and type of oil we’re able to access from some of our closest, most trusted allies in the hemisphere.”

As the Senate continues to move forward with climate change legislation, Tennesseans and American consumers alike are relying on Sen. Alexander to do the right thing and fight to oppose low carbon fuel standard mandate that will cut off supplies of affordable and reliable energy and will deepen our dependence on unstable region’s of the world to keep our economy moving.

Thankfully, signs are starting to point in the direction of the idea that he’s begun to hear that message.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Blog | No Comments »

« Older Entries

DOCUMENT CENTER

INTERACTIVE MAP

Find out the fuel profile of your state – and what a one-size-fits-all national fuel mandate might mean for jobs, gas prices, and security.

image