What do you get for the country that has everything? LCFS supporters in Congress want to give communist China the gift of 2 million barrels a day of secure, U.S.-bound energy
In just a few hours, the People’s Republic of China will formally begin the celebration of the 60th anniversary of its founding – marked, in part, by an Olympics-style military parade and tattoo showcasing its expanding political, strategic and economic clout.
Fundamental to China’s growing influence over the past several decades has been its ability to secure affordable, reliable forms of energy – a task the Chinese government has taken on with relentless determination and a renewed willingness to go anywhere, do anything, and pay whatever it takes to procure the resources it needs to strengthen its global position relative to its competitors and raise the standard of living for its citizens.
So, what do you get for the nation that has everything? A tie rack, it would seem, is out of the question. Unfortunately, some in Congress are working right now to send our friends in China a birthday gift that will ensure steady, reliable access to energy resources from Canada – offered in the form of a Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) policy that will allow the Chinese to claim oil reserves previously earmarked for use by American consumers.
Originally included in early drafts of the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill narrowly approved by the U.S. House, provisions seeking the imposition of a nationwide LCFS were not added to the initial Boxer-Kerry draft released today. But although U.S. energy consumers and those who value American security appear to have gotten a reprieve from this devastating proposal in this latest round of horse-trading, all signs continue to point to an LCFS being offered as an amendment to cap-and-trade either in committee or on the Senate floor.
Later today, U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), a vocal proponent of LCFS, will be holding a press conference to put forth a series of concerns that Senate Republicans have with the Boxer-Kerry cap-and-trade draft. Ahead of the event, and in view of the serious economic and security consequences that an LCFS would visit upon the American people, we offer below just a few of the questions that reporters, policy-makers, and members of the general public might want to ask as the debate enters a new phase:
1) Senator Alexander, now that both the House and Senate have introduced climate bills that exclude a job-killing Low-Carbon Fuel Standard from the text, will you take this opportunity today to rescind your long-standing support for the policy, and commit to dropping all plans to add it into subsequent iterations of the bill as it moves to the Senate floor?
2) Senator Alexander, a recent analysis compiled by one of President Obama’s own energy advisors found that an LCFS would divert more than 2 million barrels a day of secure, Canadian energy from the United States to our competitors in China. In view of communist China celebrating its 60th birthday this week, do you believe this is an appropriate gift – especially if it comes at the expense of U.S. consumers?
3) Senator Alexander, you’ve been quoted as saying an LCFS is an “effective way” to reduce carbon emissions without “raising the price of gasoline.” Both of these assertions have been disproven by non-partisan analysis, most recently in a report published in the American Economic Journal by professors from California and North Carolina. Do you still believe that a policy which seeks to limit the amount and type of energy Americans can access would be a free lunch for the American economy?
4) Senator Alexander, earlier this month, Consumer Energy Alliance sent a letter to National Security Advisor James Jones asking him and the National Security Council to analyze the impact on U.S. security that passage of an LCFS would create. Will you shelve your plans to offer an LCFS amendment in both committee and on the Senate floor until the results of that study are made available to your office?
5) Senator Alexander, you stand today alongside the minority leadership of the U.S. Senate. Is your support for an LCFS proposal that would ban Canadian energy from crossing the U.S. border a position that your colleagues believe would strengthen U.S security?
More from SecureOurFuels.org:
