Members of the U.S. Senate met with President Obama at the White House Tuesday to discuss next steps for energy and climate legislation. In a statement, the White House called the meeting "constructive" and released information about the president's comments:

"The President told the Senators that he still believes the best way for us to transition to a clean energy economy is with a bill that makes clean energy the profitable kind of energy for America's businesses by putting a price on pollution - because when companies pollute, they should be responsible for the costs to the environment and their contribution to climate change."

Notice that the stated strategy is to make clean energy profitable. This statement acknowledges that "clean energy" isn't profitable now. The fact is that so... more »

At a speech at Carnegie Mellon University yesterday, President Obama called the Gulf oil spill a "catastrophe" and pushed for a climate bill and higher taxes on oil companies to pay for "clean energy research and development." Mr. Obama added, "The next generation will not be held hostage to energy sources from the last century. We will not move back. America will move forward."

With all due respect, Mr. President, move forward to what? Let's look at the facts:

• The climate bill that passed the House of Representatives nearly a year ago was a giant tax bill. According to studies, it could destroy more than 2 million jobs nationwide, even after accounting for the creation of green jobs. One analysis projected it would reduce aggregate gross domestic product (GDP) by $9.4 trillion over the... more »

On Tuesday, yet another voice spoke out against the proposed climate legislation under consideration in Congress. This time it was Margo Thorning, senior vice president and chief economist at the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF), speaking before the Senate Finance Committee.

In her testimony, Thorning referenced the findings of a recent ACCF/National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) study that found the House's version of the climate bill would:

• Reduce total U.S. employment (net of new jobs created in green industries) by between 1,790,000 to 2,440,000 jobs in 2030. Manufacturing is hard hit, absorbing between 59 to 66 percent of job losses over the 2012-2030 period; and
• Lower GDP by up to 2.4 percent relative to the baseline forecast in 2030.

Additionally, Thorning speci... more »

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee today voted to send the Kerry-Boxer climate bill to the Senate floor without amendments. Only Democrats were in attendance for the vote, and Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mt.) voted against the bill, saying he would withhold his support contingent on the adoption of some pro-agriculture amendments.

The Republican members of the committee have been boycotting the committee's hearings on the Kerry-Boxer bill, saying they wanted a full Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) analysis of the legislation rather than the regurgitated analysis of the Waxman-Markey bill that was provided to the committee. Today, committee chairwoman Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.)rebuffed their request, saying it would be duplicative and a "waste of taxpayer money" to prepare a n... more »

A recent poll shows that the more Americans learn about climate legislation, the less they like it. Especially when they realize that it will take money out of their pockets.

How much money? About $2,300 per year per average U.S. household, according to the American Farm Bureau. That's nearly $200 a month.

The Farm Bureau calculated this figure by adding the Energy Information Administration's (EIA) estimate of higher energy costs ($1,870 per year) under the Waxman-Markey bill with its own estimate of the legislation's impact on food prices. The total cost: up to $200 billion per year for U.S. consumers, which equates to a 15 percent hike in personal income taxes.

"Can you [imagine] how consumers in this country would scream if they knew they would be hit with a 15 percent hike in their pe... more »