In a speech yesterday at the Southern Growth Policies Board, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour repeated the GOP's party line about the Obama administration's proposed cap and trade energy policies, repeatedly labeling the policy a "tax.

Barbour, a former lobbyist and former head of the Republican National Committee, symbolically flew the American flag over the American history and energy policies beginning with the "English who got off the boat at Jamestown four hundred years ago (and) found a land of abundant energy, easily at hand."

"And so it was for centuries," Barbour said, "with enormous amounts of eastern timberland nearby, followed by whale oil, petroleum and coal."

Barbour then lambasted America's lack of "a coherent energy policy" and presented the GOP position on the Obama administration's policies, using the oft-repeated "drill, baby, drill" of last year's presidential campaign.

"After nearly four centuries of abundant, affordable, American energy, the lack of a coherent energy policy came home to roost, especially last year."

"Yet within a few months the new Obama Administration set out in a new direction for U. S. energy policy. Instead of a policy of more American energy, the proposed Obama policy is to establish a cap and trade tax, increase taxes on oil and gas companies by $81 billion and creates a requirement that a certain percentage of electricity be generated with renewable fuels . . . a so-called renewable portfolio standard.

"These policies have in common that they would all inevitably and substantially increase the cost of energy to American families and American businesses, especially manufacturing," Barbour said.

A March 10 story in Business Week sings a different tune:

President Barack Obama hits three nails on the head with his plan to cap carbon emissions: weaning us off fossil fuels, spurring a wave of investment and job creation, and putting cash in the pockets of Americans who most need it.
…
Although prices for energy and energy-intensive goods are likely to rise, the refund (to consumers contained in the Obama policy) can make up and even exceed the additional expenses for most Americans. As an added bonus, since lower-income Americans tend to spend new disposable income quickly—and they benefit the most under a tax-and-refund plan—we can actually expect a jump in consumer spending.

Nevertheless, Barbour focused his talk ib how cap and trade would hurt American industry and consumers, while choosing not to mention the environmental damage and potential damage of dirty technologies such as oil, coal and nuclear power. He also failed to enumerate the consequences of our continued reliance on non-renewable energy.

"Estimates in our state indicate rate increases for our investor-owned utilities of $50-60 per month for the average residential customer," Barbour said. "These would be increases of approximately 50 percent, with the current average monthly bill being only about $100. For working and middle class families it would be a higher increase."

"So long as nuclear is kept off the list of what counts as renewable, this renewable standard just amounts to another tax on many of our states," he added, saying that the increased costs will be passed on to consumers.

But the impact on consumers would be "relatively modest," according to a study from the Environmental Protection Agency, and would result in increased energy efficiency.

Proponents of the Obama policy say that America must transition to new energy technologies, and take the lead in producing those technologies for the world. Under the cap and trade plan, revenue from carbon permit auctions, which could as high as $300 billion annually according to a Center for American Progress report, would be rebated to taxpayers to offset higher consumer costs.

Business Week pointed again to the refunds in the plan, which would apply to 95 percent of working Americans, and concluded by naming the real issue hampering passage of the bill: America's addiction to fossil fuels.

Right away, the President's proposal will create new investment incentives and get cash into the pockets of working Americans. In the future, as we adjust to a new green economy, the cap will be lowered, generating even greater revenue that will be distributed to the U.S. public.

The results of America's fossil-fuel addiction are clear: We send billions overseas for foreign oil, muck up the environment with coal pollution, and stunt economic development. Breaking that addiction will cause withdrawal symptoms for some, but it is necessary to build a cleaner, healthier economy for all.

Previous Comments

ID

148575

Comment

Oh Haley, you're so silly. Nuclear is "kept off the list of what counts as renewable" because it is not renewable. That's how facts work, big guy. It's funny that he cites nuclear power as his tax-free alternative to cap and trade considering that nuclear has been by far the most subsidized method of producing power in history. It has guzzled down tax dollars like [self-redacted] drinks bourbon. If we had spent even a tiny fraction of tax dollars on research into solar power that we've spent on nuclear, who knows where we might be today? I hope Americans take seriously what Barbour is saying, not for its content but for the fact that it is just one bold-faced lie after another. His estimate of the impact to Mississippi families is absurd. His suggestion that the United States can "drill baby drill" its way to energy independence is farcical. I hope Barbour runs for president in 2012. A drooling imbecile could beat this man in a national election.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2009-06-09T13:25:44-06:00

ID

148576

Comment

Well, you know Barbour: He's never above treating Mississippians like we're stupid, Brian. Should he run for president -- it's extremely amusing that southern Republicans think he would play the same nationally -- how is he going to deal with his now-long record of pardoning and releasing vicious wife and girlfriend killers. He's losing popularity on his own Gulf Coast, due to this lunacy, before he ever goes out and campaigns to people in other states. And his lobbyist record will be appalling on a national stage. Just because enough Mississippi don't give a damn doesn't mean he can cut the mustard nationally.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2009-06-09T13:35:27-06:00

ID

148577

Comment

Short note, the electric company that provides electricity to the Mansion supports cap and trade.http://www.pewclimate.org/node/6518

Author

chimneyville

Date

2009-06-09T13:46:12-06:00

ID

148578

Comment

http://www.pewclimate.org/node/6518

Author

chimneyville

Date

2009-06-09T13:47:11-06:00

ID

148579

Comment

[quote]which could as high as $300 billion annually[/quote] Isn't old Al still getting a big chunk of that action?

Author

Ironghost

Date

2009-06-09T14:20:18-06:00

ID

148583

Comment

If Al Gore were a Republican, Iron, you'd be applauding his entrepreneurial spirit for his venture firm's investment in software designed to track carbon footprints.

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2009-06-09T15:38:44-06:00

ID

148585

Comment

Brian, one of the things I found really mind-boggling about his speech was when he said Mississippi can't generate electricity from solar: A state like this one can't generate base-load or much of any electricity with wind or solar. It's a physical impossibility. What? Man, if there's one thing Mississippi has plenty of, it's sunshine. If I had solar panels on my (little) roof, I could generate enough energy for my own needs and sell the excess back to Entergy (which was one of the first power companies to commit to cleaning up its own carbon footprint, and then do it). So could hundreds of thousands of others. I just don't know what he's talking about. His entire speech was about kissing the collective rears of the oil, gas and coal industries, who are desperate not to become the 21st century equivalent of early 20th century buggy whip manufacturers. Of course, what is every mainstream paper in Mississippi talking about? That Barbour says cap and trade will double consumer's energy prices. It's as if Barbour wrote his speech with the Big Business / GOP playbook at his side. In a speech that couldn't have run for more than 10 minutes, he managed to use the word "tax" 10 times.

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2009-06-09T18:52:33-06:00

ID

148586

Comment

Ronni- base load wind or solar power means building vast solar or windmill arrays to provide entergy to customers in an area just like a coal burning or nuclear plant does not solar panels or windmills on an individual house. Mississippi doesn't have the prevailing winds for windmills or a lot of room (65 % of Mississippi is forest, don't want to cut trees down and contribute to more global warming) to build solar arrays.

Author

BubbaT

Date

2009-06-09T21:59:49-06:00

ID

148587

Comment

[quote]If Al Gore were a Republican, Iron, you'd be applauding his entrepreneurial spirit for his venture firm's investment in software designed to track carbon footprints. [/quote] If Al were a republican who'd come up with the idea, the liberal media would have flayed him alive.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2009-06-09T22:07:18-06:00

ID

148590

Comment

Bubba, it boggles my mind that Mississippi wouldn't be able to find the land for solar arrays if the will was there. The state surely "found" the land for Nissan and would find it for other manufacturing if it needed to. Seems to me what's missing is the will, not the land.

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2009-06-10T09:02:37-06:00

ID

148591

Comment

Iron, I can always rely on you to babble right-wing noise rather than make any real contribution to the discussion. Al Gore donates the proceeds of his green business ventures to non-profits that fight for sound environmental policy. He donated his Nobel Prize money to the same cause. You can attack him for being an activist, if you like, but the sleazy suggestion that his stand on global warming is all just a scam to make money is pathetic and disgusting. This is why you wingers are losing all the debates these days: a total lack of integrity.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2009-06-10T09:07:40-06:00

ID

148592

Comment

Ronni, there is also potential for offshore wind or wave power. The real problem is that conservatives have no interest in exploring the possibilities. They would rather give billions of dollars in "exploration" credits to petroleum companies than spend a dime on energy research.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2009-06-10T09:10:39-06:00

ID

148593

Comment

Note that Congressional Republicans have offered their own energy plan, though calling it a "plan" seems a bit generous. They want to build 100 new nuclear reactors over the next 20 years. There is simply no way that the United States is going to build 100 new nuclear reactors. Reactors are incredibly expensive and can only compete commercially because of huge taxpayer subsidies. Each proposal for a new reactor sets off a not-in-my-backyard fight that delays construction for years and drives up costs. New reactor designs have not proven that they can resist terrorist airline strikes. Finally, we still have no national repository for nuclear waste. So 100 new reactors would mean 100 new sites where highly radioactive waste is stored in water, waiting for permanent disposal. The other part of their plan is to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, because God forbid any part of our country be free of oil pollution. If they couldn't pass drilling there under Bush, what makes them think the American people will tolerate drilling there now? And ANWR would provide only a fraction of our energy needs, bringing us nowhere near energy independence. The Republicans do not offer real alternatives. Their "plan" is like praying for power stations to drop from the sky like manna.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2009-06-10T09:28:14-06:00

ID

148594

Comment

Brian, there is also at least one company that is exploring hydroelectricity production using the Mississippi River. With all of the clean potential energy solutions, surely America can come up with an energy plan that will take us into the future without the potential for nuclear disaster or further polluting our planet.

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2009-06-10T09:47:27-06:00

ID

148600

Comment

Ronni- The land for Nissan was a few hundred acres, the land for a base load solar power plant to equal one nuclear or coal fired plant would be a lot larger. Anywhere from 20-150 square miles from what I have been able to find out. Scientist can't seem to agree on that subject, but when can scientist agree on anything. :) The main arguement is the efficiency of solar panels and whether to use 10% efficiency or 40% efficiney rating in figuring size. Solar arrays have a higher maintenance cost, batteries have to be replace every 5 yrs(that's how the store entergy, solar panels every 10-20 years. A nuclear power plant cost is in it's construction not it's maintenace cost. Solar energy is the only constant energy source, cause the sun isn't going anywhere. But until they make smaller more efficent solar panels (which lots of companies are working on) base load solar power plants aren't going be as cost effective as other ways to produce energy.

Author

BubbaT

Date

2009-06-10T12:20:59-06:00

ID

148601

Comment

I like the idea of hydroelectric power production on the Miss. River if they can overcome the navigational concerns. Why hasn't this been studied sooner?

Author

BubbaT

Date

2009-06-10T12:26:49-06:00

ID

148608

Comment

[quote]Iron, I can always rely on you to babble right-wing noise rather than make any real contribution to the discussion. [/quote] I can count on liberals to attack people personally rather than debate. At one point, Al did stand to make billions off of Cap and Trade. He's since fixed things, he claims. Still, the umbrella of groups he's helped found and fund stand to control the entire gamut of the Carbon offsetting Game. They will determine who offends, how bad they offend, determine how much you have to pay to become "Carbon Neutral", and run the exchange where you'll purchase your carbon credits. That is the power to control American industry. That is the power to control America.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2009-06-10T15:09:31-06:00

ID

148612

Comment

Iron, no one's attacking you personally. People are attacking what you're saying. If you have citations (other than right-wing blogs) for your accusations, bring 'em on. If not, stop it.

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2009-06-10T15:39:25-06:00

ID

148614

Comment

But until they make smaller more efficient solar panels (which lots of companies are working on) base load solar power plants aren't going be as cost effective as other ways to produce energy. Bubba, this was exactly the argument against electric cars for decades, until someone figured out how to make those batteries work. Today, the EU expects all European cars to be electric on that continent by 2025. At the risk of using a cliche, necessity is the mother of invention. Here's another thing to think about: How much will it cost NOT to figure it out? We need solar, wind or other clean energy technology to replace fossil fuels. I think we can all agree on that, at least, can't we?

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2009-06-10T16:48:33-06:00

ID

148616

Comment

Electric cars will work well in Europe, where most countries are smaller than most states in the U.S. People don't drive as far there in a month as most Americans do in a week. They still have not gotten electric cars figured out. They are still expensive, underpowered, and don't have very much range. To replace my Mustang with the electric power verison of it they sell(not Ford it a conversion) would cost $100,000.00 and it will only go 140 miles before needing a 3 hour recharged. I don't think so.

Author

BubbaT

Date

2009-06-10T18:19:59-06:00

ID

148623

Comment

We are not there yet because we will not pursue the technology. The Model T got about 18 miles to the gallon. My 1966 Mustang gets about the same gas mileage as my 1999 Mustang. We have made too many excuses for car companies, oil companies, etc. The reason the technology for electric cars does not exist is because car companies and oil companies spent a lot of money and time opposing it and lobbying against it. Conservatives find themselves in a position of opposing things that make practical sense. A true conservative would admit that it does not make sense for 4 percent of the world's population to consume as much of the world's resources as we do. That places us in a vulnerable position of depending on others to supply our needs. Rush Limbaugh has a way of making opposing all these things seem right and feel good, but I would say that him being the billionaire he is, he is not really worried about the same things average Americans are.

Author

Goldenae

Date

2009-06-10T20:10:32-06:00

ID

148626

Comment

I will go on record as saying that I do not drive a Mustang! Random thoughts that do not go in the direction of an argument, though I'm pro-electric car: - Gas costs several times more, per gallon, in Europe than it does here. That provides an additional incentive for going electric. - Solar is obviously where will go eventually, but we're not there yet. The Solana plant, the world's largest solar power plant, will be built in Arizona in a couple of years. It requires 1,900 acres and will produce 280 megawatts. The Palo Verde nuclear station in New Mexico produces 4,000 megawatts. You'd need almost 30,000 acres to produce a comparable amount of power using solar. - The best short-term solution to the peak oil problem is to advocate for a better public transportation system, and to do what can be done to make urban centers pedestrian-friendly. But suburbs and deep residential neighborhoods will continue to exist and to develop--globally as a consequence of urbanization, not just in the United States; we'll have either suburbs or urban sprawl--so the issue of transportation will endure. But we might all be riding horse-drawn carriages in 20 years if the United States is not prepared to go the way of Europe on this issue.

Author

Tom Head

Date

2009-06-10T21:11:41-06:00

ID

148627

Comment

Tom- you need a Mustang- cause anything else is just a car. :) I'm not anti-electic cars, one in their present form would be totally useless to me. Diesel semi-trucks,frieght trains, and commuter trains pollute and contribute more to global warming than cars do. Can you imagine how long it would take frieght on an electric truck going coast to coast to make that trip having to stop every couple hundred miles to recharge for 3 hours. Might as well use a horse and frieght wagon it would be quicker and more effient.

Author

BubbaT

Date

2009-06-10T21:36:51-06:00

ID

148635

Comment

Diesel semi-trucks,frieght trains, and commuter trains pollute and contribute more to global warming than cars do. That might be true as a global average, Bubba, but not in the U.S. According to a 2007 Environmental Defense Fund study, light duty vehicles, including passenger cars, trucks, SUVs and so forth, account for more about half of CO2 emissions. Tom is absolutely correct in saying that the U.S. must improve public transportation. As a culture we also have to come to grips with this issue and bite the small-car bullet. I don't know what you can't live without in your Mustang, Bubba, but most Americans rarely leave a 10 or 20-mile radius from their homes. The majority do not need a car that can drive hundreds of miles at a stretch on a daily basis.

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2009-06-11T09:21:43-06:00

ID

148638

Comment

On average, it takes roughly 10 years for a nuclear plant to go from initial planning to 100% operation. By that time, renewable energy technology will be much more established, so we may as well ditch the idea of mass producing nuclear power plants. As for transportation, electric trains in Europe travel 125 mph and faster. Electric cars work well for city driving, and hybrids work well for long distance driving. As for diesel vehicles (semi-trucks, existing trains, etc), there is biodiesel. Traveling via mass transit systems is much better overall, and it only takes a brief second of reflection to notice. Your average car weighs roughly 3000 lbs. The average driver weighs 150 lbs. So, 95% of the energy that your car produces is used to propel the car, while only 5% of the energy produced is used to move the driver.

Author

chip

Date

2009-06-11T09:31:22-06:00

ID

148663

Comment

They still have a long way to go building electric and hybrids cars. GM announced today they are dropping the Malibu Hybrid because it cost $9000 more and only gets 4 miles per gallon better than a regular gas burning Malibu and not selling. They sold 14,000 Malibus in May and only 706 Hybrid Malibus. They are working on a new hybrid to be released late summer 2010.

Author

BubbaT

Date

2009-06-11T18:02:43-06:00

ID

148664

Comment

In the CL Sunday, there was an article about Toyota's factories not being able to keep up with the demand for Prius's- if GM were to build it right, people would buy...

Author

Rico

Date

2009-06-11T22:28:15-06:00

ID

148666

Comment

Has anybody seen this, hmm I might have to get a new car. http://www.detnews.com/article/20090611/POLITICS03/906110499/1148/auto01/House++Senate+teams+OK+$1B++cash+for+clunkers++program

Author

BubbaT

Date

2009-06-11T23:42:16-06:00