HOMEPAGE > NEWSROOM

Press Release

For Immediate Release
Contact: Sean C. Bonyun
May 21, 2009
(202) 225-3761

Upton Working to Protect Michigan Jobs in Midst of Climate Debate
Recent study indicates millions of potential job losses from cap-and-tax scheme – Upton working to simultaneously reduce emissions and job losses

WASHINGTON, DC - Congressman Fred Upton (R-MI), ranking Republican of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, has been working to save Michigan jobs during this week’s committee consideration of cap-and-trade legislation, H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) of 2009. Upton, who strongly opposes a national energy tax, does believe that we must reduce carbon emissions of carbon and promote the development of clean energy—whether it be nuclear power, clean coal technologies and greater use of renewables like wind, solar and hydro. Debate of the legislation is ongoing.

“Climate change is a serious problem that necessitates serious solutions, but cap-and-tax puts a bullseye on the backs of Michigan’s working families who are struggling to feed their families,” said Upton. “Study after study has indicated that families can expect to see their power bills increase by the thousands of dollars and jobs will be lost at a time when we can least afford it. It is well past time that we start standing up for Michigan’s working families who have seen their paychecks, jobs and savings evaporate. We have a unique opportunity and a responsibility to reduce emissions and preserve our economy – the American public is desperate for solutions, but a national energy tax is not the answer. Quite simply, cap-and-trade caps our growth and trades our jobs.”

Upton is not alone in his concerns. According to Upton’s former Energy and Committee colleague, Sherrod Brown, now a Democratic Senator from Ohio, “It really does say to manufacturing, ‘Go to China, where they have weaker environmental standards. And that’s a very bad message in bad economic times — in any economic times,” (The Hill, “Not all Senators warming to Obama cap-and-trade emissions proposal,” posted March 4, 2009, at thehill.com).

A recent analysis (found at http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm2450.cfm) released by the Heritage Foundation on the economic impact of the Waxman/Markey climate bill projects that by 2035 the bill would:

• Reduce aggregate GDP by $9.6 trillion;
• Destroy 1,105,000 jobs per year on average, with peak years seeing unemployment rise by over 2,479,000 jobs;
• Increase the average utility cost for a family of four by $4,800 per year;
• Raise electricity rates 90 percent;
• Raise gasoline prices 74 percent;
• Raise residential natural gas prices 55 percent.

The legislation that Upton’s committee is considering mandates that the United States cannot emit more in the year 2050 than we emitted in 1910. Consider that in 1910 the United States had only 92 million people—compared to an estimated 420 million in 2050. To reach the lofty goal of 80 percent reduction, emissions from the entire transportation sector would have to drop to zero; emissions from all electricity generation would have to drop to zero; and then we’d need to reduce all other remaining sources of emissions by 50 percent.

Upton has sought to improve the legislation with constructive amendments this week, but his efforts have been blocked at every step. For example, Upton sought to mandate an escape clause for the legislation should U.S. unemployment reach 15 percent, yet his amendment failed on a party-line vote of 34 to 21, with the exception of one Democrat voting in support.

Upton also sought to add nuclear power to the legislation, but withdrew his amendment after Democratic Reps. John Dingell (MI) and Baron Hill (IN) pledged to work with him on a nuclear provision when the climate measure is considered by the full House. Said Rep. Baron Hill during today’s hearing, “We need to get it (nuclear) back on the table because nuclear is the one technology that’s proven. And we are exploring a lot of different new technologies that may or may not work. I happen to believe that most of them will work, but we know that nuclear works, and it works safely. And so I join Representative Upton in his efforts to try to jumpstart nuclear and I want to do my part in lending assistance to his efforts.”

“Nuclear power accounts for 70 percent of our nation’s emissions-free power, and yet it is only mentioned twice in the 1,000 page bill we are debating to reduce emissions!” said Upton. “It defies common sense to ignore nuclear as a reliable solution to address climate change. As we know firsthand in southwest Michigan, the benefits of nuclear power are numerous, and renewing our commitment to nuclear power will also revitalize an entire manufacturing sector, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs.”

Upton also believes that meaningful climate change requires global participation, especially that of India and China, but efforts to include the world’s leading emitters in the legislation have also been blocked. Without international participation, jobs and emissions will simply shift overseas to countries that require few, if any, environmental protections, harming the global environment as well as the U.S. economy. Take the steel industry for example – in the United States, steel producers are the most efficient in the world, emitting one-third the greenhouse gases per ton of steel compared to China. The global environment is not helped by sending industries that operate cleanly and efficiently in the United States to a regulation-free China.

Upton believes that any climate change legislation must adhere to five basic principles: 1) provide a tangible environmental benefit to the American people; 2) advance technology and provide the opportunity for export; 3) protect American jobs; 4) strengthen U.S. energy security; and 5) require global participation. Everything must be on the table. These principles deal with the issues of cost vs. benefit – the cost of action as well as inaction.

###