American Energy Alliance Releases 10 Questions for Special Envoy Kerry

WASHINGTON DC (07/13/2023) – The House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and Accountability is set to force Kerry to explain his budget beginning Thursday at 10 a.m. The American Energy Alliance has prepared 10 questions for Special Envoy Kerry.

  1. Can you provide an estimate as to how much carbon dioxide you emit a year traveling the world in your official capacity as Special Envoy on Climate?
  2. In 2009, Special Envoy Kerry said the Arctic could be ice-free by 2014. It’s 2023 and this hasn’t come to pass. Why should we believe today’s claims about disasters when yesterday’s claims of disasters have not come to pass?
  3. In numerous instances Special Envoy Kerry, you have made claims about climate change that are not backed by the IPCC’s reports on climate change. Should we trust the IPCC’s reports on climate change?
  4. Do you consider China to be on the forefront of the sort of climate policies that you would like to see in America?
  5. China burns more coal each year than the rest of the world combined, and they have recently opened new coal mines that will last generations and started moving coal by rail from Mongolia cutting transportation costs to 1/4 their previous level. Since China makes most of the world’s polysilicon for solar panels from cheap coal power, doesn’t this just mean the administration’s “green transition” means we will be importing coal-dependent solar panels from China? Does it ever occur to you that we may be making China stronger by pushing for “green energy” products they make and sell to us because they use so much coal?
  6. Given the critical minerals requirements of green technologies, why are we not working toward streamlining the approvals process for domestic mines that would produce them?
  7. Are claims of modern-day slavery in China a concern to you?
  8. Are you willing to acknowledge that the cost-of-living crisis in Europe is, at least in part, tied to the climate policies pursued by the EU?
  9. Is there any sort of limit you are willing to put on how much the U.S. government should spend a year addressing climate change?
  10. Recent surveys show that American voters prefer affordable energy to your climate agenda. Given the concerns about the economy and the general disinterest in climate change as an issue, it is not surprising that voters don’t really want the government to do much. How do you make the democratic case for continued aggressive government action in the name of climate change?


AEA President Thomas Pyle issued the following statement:

“Special Envoy Kerry has made a career championing dubious claims about the so-called ‘climate crisis’ while turning a blind eye to the world’s worst polluters such as China. The House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and Accountability has an obligation to raise questions to Special Envoy Kerry about the role of China in the government-imposed energy transition.”


Additional Resources:

For media inquiries please contact:
[email protected]

The Unregulated Podcast #138: Save Our Cars

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss Vice-President Harris “finding” her voice, New York City’s war on independent restaurants and carry-outs, Ford’s latest deal with the federal government, and the latest on war against American car ownership.

Links:

“Prove It” Act Lays the Groundwork for a Carbon Tariff

Recently, the issue of a carbon tariff has been getting a lot of attention. This is true both in Congress and abroad as the European Union just instituted its own carbon border tax earlier this year. In the U.S., there has been talk of instituting a similar policy for a while now, with advocates in both the Republican and Democratic party. Call it a “carbon tax,” a “carbon border tax,” “carbon pricing” or a “carbon tariff,” but for consumers, it simply means making everything cost more via a hidden tax politicians can use to spread around for their political priorities. You can probably guess that you aren’t on that list.

For Democrats, the carbon tax and carbon tariff are vehicles to further “climate action,” which they seem to favor in any form and at any cost. For some Republicans, the concept is a way to restrict trade while simultaneously punishing China, which has lower environmental standards than the United States. What the China hawks fail to acknowledge is that tariffs imposed by the U.S. government aren’t borne by international producers, but by domestic consumers. In many ways, it acts like inflation, which erodes the buying power of consumers. And hiding “climate action” or “leveling the playing field,” does not change the fact that we all will be paying more for our energy, which has already been eating away at our household budgets for several years now. 

The most recent effort is the Providing Reliable, Objective, Verifiable Emissions Intensity and Transparency Act of 2023 or the “PROVE IT Act. The bill is authored by Republican Senator Kevin Cramer (ND) and Democratic Senator Chris Coons (DE). This bill’s stated objective is to direct the Department of Energy to publish a study identifying the emissions intensity of various industrial products both domestically and from countries that are trading partners of various types or who control substantial global market share for a product. The study would also seek to identify any issues with verifying emissions intensity, and would compare U.S. intensity to that of other countries.

This idea sounds benign. After all, what is wrong with a study, say the authors. The problem is this administration’s track record on producing accurate information free from their climate bias is problematic at best. Given that, the idea that the report would use objective metrics to determine carbon emissions is dubious. Rather, it would almost certainly be used to justify carbon pricing, which the Administration already supports. 

Let’s take the social cost of carbon, for example. The social cost of carbon is a metric established by the Obama administration and brought back under President Biden that estimates the purported economic damages associated with CO2 emissions. It sounds good in theory, but the model used has been shown to be incredibly easy to manipulate, rendering its conclusion useless, while giving cover to the Administration to justify vastly expensive new regulations. 

The PROVE IT act would act in a similar way by legislating the creation of a study that was handmade for the purpose of raising prices on American consumers. It is also unnecessary since studies on the relative carbon dioxide intensities of other nations already exist. 

Ultimately, tariffs are not a tax on foreign producers, but on domestic consumers. In the case of a carbon tax, they simply reflect the Biden Administration’s view and compliance with their voluntary re-entry into the Paris Accords, which have never been subjected to a treaty vote by the U.S. Senate, which is constitutionally responsible in such matters. Companies always pass their costs onto their customers, and so, as with all other tariffs, the ones ultimately holding the bill for a border-adjusted carbon tariff would be you and me. Our reliance on Chinese minerals and other industrial products is certainly a concern, but raising the prices we pay for energy intensive goods is not the solution to that problem. This is especially true for things we don’t make in sufficient quantities such as the critical minerals that the Biden Administration has kept us from developing. A tax on imports will only serve to exacerbate our existing trade issues without presenting meaningful solutions to our domestic mining issues that actions like permitting reform and quicker approvals would help to alleviate. It’s difficult to understand how our government could justify taxing things from abroad while simultaneously denying us the ability to produce them at home. 

Furthermore, you can’t have a border adjusted tax without a domestic carbon tax. That’s just how the international trade rules work. So even if you support a border tax, but not a domestic carbon tax, we are eventually going to get one anyway.

If Senator Cramer wants to promote American industry, then he should look for options other than trade protectionism in the form of carbon tariffs or other taxes. In the short run, carbon tariffs may confer some advantages to some parts of American industry, but in the long run, policymakers will only harm those businesses by shielding them from the competitive pressures of foreign competition in a global market. That competition encourages innovation and efficiencies that benefit the industry itself as well as consumers. Along the way, American consumers will be harmed as they pay more for goods and services as the costs of tariffs are ultimately passed along to them. Americans are waiting to build pipelines, open mines, and produce energy to compete with China, but our elected leadership has failed to open avenues for them to pursue that work. 

A better approach to promoting American industry would be to focus on reducing burdensome regulations here in the U.S. that raise the cost of doing business and make it harder for American industry to compete with countries like India and China. In the energy sector, a good place to start would be to work on overturning the over 150 actions the Biden administration and Democrats have taken that have raised energy prices by making it harder to produce oil and natural gas here in the U.S. Likewise, they could reverse their animosity towards mining in the U.S. that has foreclosed access to the minerals their “green energy policies” are demanding we use. 

Americans do not need new taxes of any kind. It will only make their lives harder. The PROVE IT act is the beginning of a road that will end in both a tax on imports and a domestic energy tax. If Senators Cramer and Coons want to tax our energy, they should be more transparent about it and bring a carbon tax to the Senate floor for a vote. But they won’t because they know that it would be dead on arrival.


Contact your legislators through the form below and let them know what you think about their efforts to bring a carbon tax to America.

The Unregulated Podcast #137: A Collapsed Bridge

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss the “historic” characters running around the Biden White House, the deteriorating situation with China, and the looming threats to America’s electric grid.

The Unregulated Podcast #136: Going Off Script

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss the latest Biden bumbles, the aftermath of the Canadian wildfire smog, and more headlines from a busy week.

Links:

Key Vote YES on H.R. 1640 and YES on H.R. 277

The American Energy Alliance supports H.R. 1640 the Save Our Gas Stoves Act and H.R. 277 Regulations from the Executive In Need of Scrutiny Act. 

H.R. 1640 would prevent the Department of Energy from proceeding with its overreaching and illegal rulemaking which would ban at least 40% of all gas stoves and as many as 100% of gas stoves with certain features preferred by consumers. While claiming this rulemaking is about energy efficiency, in reality it is just one part of the administration’s broad effort to eliminate natural gas powered appliances entirely. The claimed savings are minuscule, only averaging $1.08 per year, which makes the rule entirely unjustified and contrary to the plain text of statute.

The attempted overreach by the Department of Energy highlights the need for a second piece of legislation, H.R. 277 the REINS Act. Expensive and unjustified regulatory adventurism from the executive branch is increasingly common, under administrations of both parties. It is long past time for Congress to take back some of the power it handed over to the regulatory state. Requiring Congress to approve major rules would provide a necessary check on extreme executive regulatory action as well as rebalancing the administrative state to make it more accountable to the American people.

A YES vote on H.R. 1640 and a YES vote on H.R. 277 are votes in support of free markets and affordable energy. AEA will include these votes in its American Energy Scorecard.

The Unregulated Podcast #135: Somewhat Understated Style

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss the widening 2024 presidential field, high jinks in the House, and more headlines from the week.

Links:

After Decades Of Climate Catastrophizing, Reality Hits Europe

Beginning decades ago, Europe went wholeheartedly into “net zero carbon by 2050” by implementing carbon reduction policies that eventually raised prices dramatically, putting more residents into energy poverty and causing industry to flee to areas where they could remain competitive. The United States under President Biden’s leadership is following in those footsteps at a rapid pace through legislative initiatives (e.g. the Inflation Reduction Act) and regulatory action such as EPA’s power plant rule and efficiency standards for vehicles which are forcing electric vehicles on the American public. But, now that the Europeans are starting to see the impact of their net zero carbon policies and people are rebelling in the streets of Paris and farmers on the roads in the Netherlands, European lawmakers are starting to say “whoa.” But, not the Biden administration.

The Beginnings

The European Union has been at the forefront of the fight against the energy sources which enabled their wealth and the climate change they insist is linked, but it is now under pressure to pause new environmental efforts amid fears they will hurt the economy. Some leaders and lawmakers are concerned about antagonizing workers with new binding legislation and restrictive measures and are urging the 27-nation bloc to hit the brakes. The European Union (EU) had adopted a wide range of measures, from reducing energy consumption to sharply cutting transport emissions and reforming the EU’s trading system for greenhouse gases. French President Macron even suggested people were facing “the end of abundance.”

Current Issues

Earlier this year, however, Germany delayed a deal to ban internal combustion engines in the EU by 2035 due to disagreements within its economy. The auto industry in Germany employs about 786,000 people. Last fall, Germany had signed an EU target to ban the sale of internal combustion engine cars by 2035, but the country opposed the idea earlier this year, along with Italy, Poland, and the Czech Republic. Germany’s transport minister is asking what the point is in pushing electric vehicles if the power that drives them comes from burning coal, as Germany has closed all its nuclear plants and is unable to get sufficient power from wind and solar to meet demand.  Germany is tackling its reduction in natural gas supplies from Russia by re-opening coal mines. In one case, a wind farm is being removed to dig for lignite. In March, EU reached an agreement to allow internal combustion engine vehicles to be powered by synthetic fuels manufactured from hydrogen and carbon dioxide, but these fuels are considerably more expensive than gasoline and their availability is limited. 

France recently called for a pause on EU environmental regulation. President Macron said it was time for the EU to implement existing rules before adopting new ones, as they could put France at a competitive disadvantage. He railed against those who still want to add standards and called for a new generation of nuclear reactors as France gets most of its electricity from nuclear power.

Belgium Prime Minister Alexander DeCroo called for a moratorium on the introduction of EU legislation aimed at nature preservation. The EU law proposed by 2030 to cover at least 20 percent of the EU’s land and sea with nature restoration measures, and eventually extend them to all ecosystems in need of restoration by 2050. According to DeCroo, climate legislation should not be overloaded with restoration measures or limits on agricultural nitrogen pollution, warning that businesses would no longer be able to keep up. The nature restoration law proposal would threaten agriculture and undermine food security in Europe by increasing food prices, require more imports and driving farmers out of business.  The government in the Netherlands has been seizing and idling farmers’ lands in the name of climate.

In Poland, ruling party leader Jaroslaw Kaczynski said the EU climate package was promoting “irrational solutions.” He vowed the government will fight for “a just transition” for the country.

The European Union lawmakers in Brussels decided to delay key parts of its Green New Deal after a party led by anti-Net Zero farmers came in first in Senate elections in the Netherlands in a huge upset.  EU lawmakers recently recommended weakening a proposal on industrial emissions and threatened to reject rules on pesticides and re-wilding land and seas. As concepts and regulations begin to be implemented, politicians pushing those policies are facing growing opposition.

European Companies Looking Abroad

A majority of chief executives in an influential group of European businesses said they are planning to increase their presence in North America amid growing concerns about Europe’s loss of competitiveness. About 57 percent of company chiefs of European multinationals are eyeing shifting investments or operations — or both — over the next two years. A majority of respondents — more than 80 percent —  said they believe Europe is losing competitiveness as a base for industry, as the continent reels from geopolitical risks, inflation and energy costs, along with skills shortages and supply-chain disruptions. Europe’s efforts to restore its competitiveness are more challenged than ever due to an unstable geopolitical environment, elevated energy prices compared to pre-2019 levels, rising inflation, tighter financing conditions, and record-high input costs.

Conclusion

The EU seems to be realizing that its quest to reach net zero carbon needs to take a pause and perhaps be more thought-out as the pace of legislative changes may be a detriment to the economy and to their political futures.  Escalating prices are making more residents energy-poor and forcing companies to move abroad to be competitive, leading to de-industrialization. It seems that when politicians feel the heat, they see the light.

But, Biden is not heeding the European warnings and instead is moving ahead with regulations that will shutter natural gas and coal plantsforce Americans to buy electric vehicles costing much more than gasoline-powered vehicles, and practically kill the U.S. coal industry. The Biden administration laws are forcing wind and solar power on communities through lucrative incentives that will result in higher electric costs and summer blackouts as reliability will be lessened with fewer coal and natural gas power plants. It is mind-boggling that the United States under President Biden is now to the left of socialist France and other EU nations in climate fanaticism and is enacting policies that would make people poorer.

policies.


*This article was adapted from content originally published by the Institute for Energy Research.

The Unregulated Podcast #134 Happy Hour

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss Biden’s latest tumults, the AI-enabled end times, new survey data from AEA and the Committee to Unleash Prosperity, and more.

Links:

New Survey, Same Results: Voters Prefer Affordable Energy over Climate Agenda

The American Energy Alliance and the Committee to Unleash Prosperity recently completed a nationwide survey of 1000 likely voters (3.1% margin of error) executed in the first two weeks of May.  A full slide deck of the results can be found here.  

As Mike McKenna of MWR Strategies notes, there are a few salient points worth noting.

First, and probably most pointedly, Republicans continue to be on solid ground with respect to who should make decisions about (and who should pay for) car and truck purchases, on carbon dioxide taxes, on willingness to pay to address climate change, on issue prioritization, and even on the fundamentals of the science (by a margin of 19 points respondents identified carbon dioxide as “needed for plant life” rather than a “pollutant”).

Second, voter sentiment and attitudes on energy and climate change seem to be characterized by stasis; despite what you may have read in the media, there has been little change in voter sentiments and attitudes with respect to energy and climate change.  Many of the responses in the survey are either consistent with or more emphatic than what we have found previously.

Where there has been change from past surveys, voter sentiment in favor of government making decisions, in favor of taxation, in favor of banning gasoline-powered products, and in favor of reliance on China, has eroded over time.

For example, when we asked whether a federal EV mandate would cause electricity prices to increase or decrease, 81% of respondents said that it would cause them to increase.  Last year, 74% said it would cause them to increase.  The year before, 69% said it would cause them to increase.

We asked about levels of concern about China’s domination of the EV supply chain.  This year, 64% were very concerned.  Last year, 56% were very concerned.  The year before 43% were very concerned.

We asked about a tax on carbon dioxide.  This year, by a margin of 44 percentage points (65-21).  Last year, it was opposed by a margin of 40 points (63-23).  The year before, it was opposed by 34 points (62-38).

We asked about whether the federal government should raise energy taxes as a potential response to climate change.  This year, respondents opposed by a margin of 63 points (77-14).  Last year, respondents opposed it by a margin of 55 points (70-15).  The year before, respondents opposed it by a margin of 38 points (59-21).

We asked about banning gasoline-powered vehicles.  This year, it was opposed by a margin of 67 points (82-15).  Last year, it was opposed by a margin of 63 points (76-13).  The year before, it was opposed by a margin of 66 points (75-9).

In short, there has been a lot of durability of sentiment on this issue, and where there has been change, it has run counter to the policy preferences of the left.

Third, voters don’t seem to care much about climate change and their willingness to pay anything to address has dissolved in the last year.

As we have seen across a number of years, climate change is not a priority for most.  Just 28 respondents (2.8%) identified it as the most pressing issue facing the United States, and just 29 more (2.9%) identified it as the second most pressing issue facing the United States.  Compare this to the 55% that identified the economy as either the first or second most important issue facing the United States.

Given that, it is not surprising that there continues to be limited appetite to pay to address climate change.   When asked what they would be willing to pay each year to address climate change, the median response was 20 dollars, and 35% (including 15% of self-identified Democrats) said they are unwilling to pay anything.  There has been some rapid erosion in these responses:  last year, the median response was 55 dollars.

Given the concerns about the economy and the general disinterest in climate change as an issue, it is not surprising that voters don’t really want the government to do much.  Voters don’t want a carbon dioxide tax (rejected by 44 points).  They don’t want to ban gasoline-powered engines (rejected by 72 points, compared to being rejected by just 63 points last year).  Voters – including 58% of self-identified Democrats — flat out reject electric vehicle mandates (77-23).

Finally, voters don’t trust government very much.  More than two-thirds (70%) said that they did not trust the federal government to decide what kind of cars should be subsidized or mandated.  An even greater percentage (80% this year, up from 70% last year) said they wanted to make the decision about the cars and fuels they buy, rather than the State government (4%) or federal government (8%).  No one wants California to be in charge of that decision:  82% of respondents (including 72% of self-identified Democrats) disagreed with the statement:  “The State of California should be able to determine what kinds of cars can be sold in other States.”