Press Releases

 

Entries in Environmental Extremeists (44)

Thursday
Apr032014

NRSC - Shaheen: Obama's Rubber Stamp on Energy Policy

Shaheen Supports Obama's Energy Agenda Instead of
What's Best For New Hampshire

Votes with Obama an Astounding 99% of the Time





Despite the fact that a majority of Granite Staters disapprove of President Obama, Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) remains a loyal proxy vote for the liberal Obama agenda. Shaheen has voted with Obama an astonishing 99% of the time and has supported policies harmful to American energy that could cripple entire industries, destroy jobs, and hurt workers in New Hampshire. 

For voters in New Hampshire, Jeanne Shaheen's propensity to support President Obama on energy issues will mean more red tape regulation, higher taxes, and increased costs that would destroy local businesses and hurt the middle class. The Shaheen-Obama agenda is simply too extreme for New Hampshire: 

  • Crippling: Jeanne Shaheen supported liberal California Senator Barbara Boxer's cap-and-trade scheme that would have increased New Hampshire energy prices and killed jobs.
  • Harmful: Jeanne Shaheen voted for an amendment that provided for the establishment of a tax on carbon.
  • Dangerous: Jeanne Shaheen voted against an amendment that that would have blocked the EPA from regulating carbon dioxide.

"Jeanne Shaheen promised to be an independent voice for New Hampshire but instead voted with President Obama 99% of the time, and supported a reckless cap-and-trade plan," said NRSC Press Secretary Brook Hougesen. "Those who don't agree with Barack Obama on energy issues don't agree with Jeanne Shaheen either, which is why voters will replace her with a Senator that they can trust to protect families, seniors, and workers in New Hampshire."

BACKGROUND:

Independence Rhetoric

In An Interview With WMUR, Jeanne Shaheen Said She Only Votes With Obama When It's Good For New Hampshire. SHAHEEN: “I support what’s good for New Hampshire, and when the President agrees with that, that’s great. When the President doesn’t, then I disagree with the President.” (WMUR, 3/20/14)

In 2008, Shaheen Attacked John Sununu For Voting With President Bush 90% Of The Time. SHAHEEN: “Well, I’ve acknowledged that John Sununu has voted ten percent of the time independently. He’s voted ninety percent of the time with President Bush, and the reason that’s a concern is because it is those votes, for those policies, that have gotten us into the economic crisis that we’re in, because you have voted down the line with George Bush on his economic policies, to support his budgets, to support raising the debt to ten trillion dollars. You’ve taken the biggest surplus in the history of the country and turned it into a  near record deficit.” (Jeanne Shaheen, New Hampshire Senate Debate, 10/21/08)

Anti-Energy Policies

In March 2013, Shaheen Voted In Favor Of Establishing A New Tax On Carbon. “Whitehouse, D-R.I., amendment no. 646 that would establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to allow for legislation that would provide for a fee on carbon pollution and use revenues collected to reduce the deficit.” (S. Con. Res. 8, CQ Vote #58: Rejected 41-58: R 0-45; D 39-13; I 2-0, 3/22/13, Shaheen Voted Yea)

In 2008, Shaheen Supported The Lieberman-Warner Cap-And-Trade Legislation To Reduce Carbon Dioxide Emissions By 80 Percent By 2050. “‘She supports many of the aims of the Warner-Lieberman bill,’ Shaheen spokeswoman Kate Bedingfield said in a statement. ‘She supports the goal of cutting carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050, and in the U.S. Senate will push for a comprehensive plan to achieve that goal that includes economy-wide emissions reductions, aggressive research and development for new energy technologies , work with international partners to achieve global emissions reductions, and incentives for energy efficiency and clean alternative energy sources.’” (John P. Gregg, “N.H. Senators Face Pressure,” [White River Junction, VT] Valley News, 6/6/08)

In March 2013, Shaheen Voted Against An Amendment That Would Assume For A Ban On The EPA Regulating Carbon Emissions. “Inhofe, R-Okla., amendment no. 359 that would adjust the resolution to assume for a ban on the EPA regulation of carbon emissions.” (S. Con. Res. 8, CQ Vote #76: Rejected 47-52: R 44-1; D 3-49; I 0-2, 3/23/13, Shaheen Voted Nay)

In April 2011, Shaheen Voted Against An Amendment That Would Have Blocked The EPA From Regulating Carbon Dioxide And Other Greenhouse Gasses. “McConnell, R-Ky., amendment no. 183 that would block the EPA from regulating carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.” (S. 493, CQ Vote #54: Rejected 50-50: R 46-1; D 4-47; I 0-2, 4/6/11, Shaheen Voted Nay)

In 2013, Shaheen Voted Against A Bipartisan Amendment To Provide Congressional Approval For The Construction Of The Keystone Pipeline. “Hoeven, R-N.D., amendment no. 494 that would create a deficit-neutral reserve fund to allow for legislation that would provide for the approval and construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline as long as the legislation's costs are offset without raising revenue.” (S. Con. Res. 8, CQ Vote #61: Adopted 62-37: R 45-0; D 17-35; I 0-2, 3/22/13, Shaheen Voted Nay)

Saturday
Mar292014

Cooler Heads Digest 28 March 2014 

28 March 2014

In the News

Human Achievement Hour: Light’s On!
William Yeatman, Master Resource, 28 March 2014

Climate Forecast: Muting the Alarm
Matt Ridley, Wall Street Journal, 27 March 2014

Anti-Fracking Agitprop Documentarian Josh Fox Is Wrong Again
Ashe Snow, Washington Examiner, 27 March 2014

Earth Hour’s Misguided Premise
Bjorn Lomborg, USA Today, 27 March 2014

Confidential Document Reveals Sierra Club’s War on Coal Strategy
Michael Bastasch, Daily Caller, 26 March 2014

Members of “Independent” EPA Advisory Committee Got $180 Million from EPA
David Kreutzer, The Foundry, 26 March 2014

Global Warming Will Not Cost the Earth, Leaked IPCC Report Admits
James Delingpole, Breitbart, 26 March 2014

Climate Change Debate about To Change Radically
Andrew Lilico, Telegraph, 25 March 2014

Sea Level Rise Decelerated 31% Since 2002
The Hockey Schtick, 23 March 2014

Washington Post Falls for Left-Wing Fraudsters on Koch-Keystone Connection
John Hinderaker, Powerline, 20 March 2014

News You Can Use
U.S. Now Accounts for 10% of Global Crude Production

Thanks to advances in oil and gas drilling collectively known as hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” U.S. oil production grew by a record 1.136 million barrels a day last year to 8.121 million barrels a day. As a result, the domestic energy industry now accounts for 10 percent of global production.

Inside the Beltway
William Yeatman

SCOTUS Upholds One Front in EPA’s War on Coal

On Monday, the Supreme Court effectively sided with the EPA in a long-running legal battle over the Agency’s controversial 2011 veto of a Clean Water Act “Section 404” permit that already had been issued to Arch Coal for a surface coal mine in Logan County, West Virginia.

As I reported after a visit to West Virginia, EPA’s veto of the permit was deeply unpopular with people in the state, who believed that the Agency was unneccessarily checking job creation. The coal company litigated, and in March 2012, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled that EPA did not have the authority to retroactively revoke a permit, a decision which vacated the Agency’s action, and would have allowed Arch Coal to proceed with mining.

EPA appealed Judge Jackson’s ruling. On April 23rd, 2013, a unanimous three judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed with the lower court, and found that EPA did indeed have the authority to revoke a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit after it had been granted to the company seeking the variance.

Arch Coal then appealed the D.C. Circuit Court’s ruling to the Supreme Court. But on Monday, the Court declined to take up the case.

Now that it’s been established by the courts that EPA has the authority to retroactively veto Clean Water Act permits, the case returns to U.S. District Court Judge Jackson, in order to determine whether EPA exercised this authority reasonably. As I’ve argued here, this question remains very much in doubt: The agency’s ridiculous justification for revoking the permit is the supposed need to protect a short-lived insect that isn’t an endangered species.

Interior Department Classifies Lesser Prairie Chicken as “Threatened”; Could Be Worse, But Still Bad

Yesterday the Interior Department classified the lesser prairie chicken as a “threatened” species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). While a “threatened” listing doesn’t automatically trigger the draconian regulations that are required under an “endangered” classification, it gives the Interior Department wide latitude to impose regulations, even those that could be as severe.

The lesser prairie chicken’s habitat coincides with areas that are experiencing for growing oil and gas production in the southwest due to the advent of fracking. Over the last five years, energy companies in the region have voluntarily spent millions of dollars to preserve the species, in collaboration with the federal government. The Interior Department ruled that the “threatened” designation would precipitate regulatory commitments for the oil and gas industry beyond what they already are doing voluntarily. This raises an obvious question: Why was the listing necessary?

Despite the Interior Department’s assurances, there is cause for concern. The Endangered Species Act is known as the “bulldog” of environmental statutes. It affords environmental litigants ample opportunity to sue in federal court and press the case for ever more stringent controls. Notably, yesterday’s “threatened” listing itself was the byproduct of so-called “sue and settle” litigation, or sweetheart lawsuits whereby EPA cedes its regulatory initiative to green special interests.

Across the States
William Yeatman

Pennsylvania, North Dakota Booming Due to Fracking

The American energy boom engendered by fracking is having a big impact on local economies. This week, the Department of Labor released statistics showing that the citizens of North Dakota, the locus of much of the increased energy production, enjoyed the fastest increase in personal income, at 7.6 percent. Current per capita income in North Dakota is $57,000, second only to Connecticut, and has increased by almost 50 percent since 2009.The situation is similar in Pennsylvania, another area that is being revitalized by the U.S. energy renaissance. According to the Labor Department statistics cited above, the Keystone State has added more than 15,000 direct jobs in the oil and gas industry since 2007, which is a 268 percent increase (during a global recession).

Green Energy Mandate Repeal Stalls in Kansas; Introduced in Ohio

Over the last decade, a number of states have enacted green energy mandates, known as renewable portfolio standards (RPS), that require ratepayers to buy increasing amounts of wind and solar energy. Because renewable energy is more expensive than conventional energy, some states are now revisiting their green energy production quotas, as consumer costs mount.

For example, this week the Kansas Senate, by a 25-15 vote, passed H.B. 2014, which would repeal the state’s RPS requirement that Kansas utility companies to receive 20 percent of their energy from renewable sources by 2020. Unfortunately, the Republican-controlled Kansas House spurned the measure, by a 77-44 vote. H.B. 2014, however, is not yet dead. There are two weeks left in the legislative session, and proponents of repeal remain sanguine.

Similarly, House and Senate Republicans in Ohio this week announced their intention to introduce a bill that would suspend the state’s 2008 RPS. The GOP has a large majority in both chambers, so it stands to reason that this effort has an excellent chance of succeeding.

Around the World
William Yeatman

EU Asks Obama to Stop Dragging Feet on Nat Gas Exports

At a European Union–U.S. summit this week in Brussels, EU leaders asked Barack Obama to share the facilitate gas exports to help counter Russia’s influence over European energy markets.

With U.S. gas supplies buoyed by fracking, there exists an economic incentive to increase gas exports. However, under the Natural Gas Act, companies cannot import or export natural gas without approval from the Energy Department. There are more than two dozen license applications pending, but expanded exports are opposed by anti–fossil fuel environmentalists, a key component of the president’s political base. As a consequence, his administration has dragged its feet, and the Department of Energy has processed only six applications.

EU leaders this week requested that the administration hurry up. “What we are asking for is a willingness of the US side to be more pro-active on licences,” João Vale de Almeida, the EU ambassador in Washington, told The Guardian. EU leaders were galvanized by Russia’s imminent annexation of Crimea; they feared that Russia could use its position in the EU gas market—Russian exports account for a third of European gas—as a geopolitical cudgel.

The Cooler Heads Digest is the weekly e-mail publication of the Cooler Heads Coalition. For the latest news and commentary, check out the Coalition’s website, www.GlobalWarming.org.

Thursday
Mar202014

NHDP - HYPOCRISY ALERT: Brown Said He Was “Disgusted” and “Deeply Disturbed” By Third-Party Ads in MA

Brown Said He Was “Disgusted” & “Deeply Disturbed” By Third-Party Ads in MA,
Now Refuses to Protect People of NH

 
Concord, NH—Scott Brown proposed, signed, and boasted about his People’s Pledge throughout and after the 2012 election – including as recently as six weeks ago – but is now refusing to sign the same exact People’s Pledge in New Hampshire, allowing Wall Street, Big Oil, the billionaire Koch brothers and Karl Rove’s special interest money to keep polluting New Hampshire’s election, making it harder than ever for voters to hear from the candidates.
 
"Scott Brown is offering the people of New Hampshire nothing but phony, hypocritical excuses. He said Massachusetts deserved better than a tidal wave of dirty money and signed the People’s Pledge. Well he’s in New Hampshire now, and people here deserve better too,” said New Hampshire Democratic Party Communications Director Julie McClain. “Scott Brown’s refusal to sign the same exact People’s Pledge he signed in Massachusetts is a disservice to the people of New Hampshire, who will face an election polluted by special interest attack ads.
 
“A year ago, Scott Brown stood before students in Massachusetts and heralded the People’s Pledge, calling it a ‘historic’ achievement because it kept dark money groups, like the one operated by the Koch Brothers, out of the political discourse. Just six weeks ago, Brown addressed students at Cornell University, proudly touting his ‘unique’ People's Pledge. Now, suddenly, he won’t agree to the exact same terms because he thinks it's better for his politics. That's a shame."
 
At Cornell six weeks ago, Brown praised and took credit for the People's Pledge:
 
"We didn't need another 30 to 40 million dollars coming in to distort our record and positions on things, so but what we came up with was the people's pledge. Very unique, way to try to address these things.” He also declared its success, saying, “it worked.”
 
In February of 2013, Brown also spoke enthusiastically about the People’s Pledge that he and Senator Warren signed in 2012 at Amherst College. He even specifically calls out the Koch Brothers, who have already spent $700,000 for his campaign in New Hampshire, as being a major part of the problem.
 
“I and she were really disgusted and deeply concerned about the groups that would come in and distort our records and positions on things. Those third party super PAC’s in particular.  So we came up with a very unique way to handle that.  We signed an agreement.  It’s historic--it’s the only one in the country.”
 
McClain said, “There’s still time. Scott Brown needs to protect the integrity of the New Hampshire electoral process and sign the People’s Pledge.”
Wednesday
Mar192014

NHDP - Fmr. Mayor Ferrini: Portsmouth Supports Jeanne Shaheen

Don’t Let Wall Street and Big Oil Buy Our Senate Seat

 
Portsmouth, NH—As former Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown plays tourist in New Hampshire, he keeps running into concerned New Hampshire residents who want to hold him to the same standard he set in Massachusetts when he signed the People’s Pledge in 2012.
 
“What Scott Brown will see in Portsmouth is that we support Jeanne Shaheen. Thanks to her work to secure funding for the Memorial Bridge, keep the shipyard open, and bring the KC-46A tanker to Pease, Portsmouth and the families that live here are better off,” said former Portsmouth Mayor Tom Ferrini. "We know Jeanne Shaheen is going to stand up to special interests and fight for us. Scott Brown has to prove that he will do the same. That means signing the same People's Pledge he signed in Massachusetts to keep Wall Street and Big Oil from buying our Senate seat."

Wednesday
Mar192014

NHDP: Karl Rove Spending Special Interest Money Trying to Buy Our Senate Seat For Scott Brown

Time for Brown to Sign the People's Pledge
 
Concord -- New Hampshire Democratic Party Chair Ray Buckley issued the following statement after Karl Rove's $650,000 worth of attack ads to help his candidate, Scott Brown, began polluting New Hampshire airwaves this morning. This brings the total Big Oil and Republican special interest backed third party spending to more than $1.5 million in the New Hampshire Senate race.

"In Massachusetts, Scott Brown said the people deserved better than having their airwaves polluted with third-party ads, so he signed the People's Pledge to stop those attacks.  In New Hampshire, we have a message for Scott Brown: We deserve better, too, and he should sign that same People's Pledge for New Hampshire.

"These new attack ads, paid for by Karl Rove and his special interest money are more proof Big Oil, Wall Street and Republican third party groups think they can buy our Senate seat for Scott Brown. As the Senator from Massachusetts, Scott Brown voted like he was the Senator from Big Oil and Wall Street. He gave them billions in special breaks, and they gave him millions in campaign contributions. In the Senate, Jeanne Shaheen stood up to Big Oil and voted to stop those special breaks.  She's leading the fight on a bipartisan effort to lower energy costs for consumers and help create jobs. The people of New Hampshire know Jeanne Shaheen is working to protect their interests, not Big Oil and Wall Street.”