Search for...
Follow @ontheissuesorg
OnTheIssuesLogo

Ken Cuccinelli on Energy & Oil

 


We need oil, natural gas, and coal, plus new sources

Virginia should be a national leader in energy independence with the natural resources we have in our Commonwealth. We need oil, natural gas, and coal to power our homes, cars, and economy and Virginia could be doing more to provide that to the world while growing job opportunities for our middle class. But we also need to find new sources of energy with nuclear, wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, as part of a comprehensive energy program. As Governor, I want an all of the above energy strategy, but one that takes advantage of all of the resources we have here in Virginia and off our shores, in an environmentally safe and economically sound manner and with as little government intervention as possible.
Source: 2013 Governor campaign website, cuccinelli.com, "Issues" , Mar 23, 2013

CO2 regulations force unproven & expensive technology

In 2011, about 2/3 of the electricity that America used came from burning fossil fuels such as coal & natural gas. We relied on that fossil fuel-based electricity daily to power our computers, our refrigerators, our lights, our televisions, and even our electric cars! We relied on oil to heat our homes; power our cars; & power the transport trucks that brought the food to our grocery stores.

Using greenhouse gas regulations to force Americans to replace these critical energy sources with more costly, less abundant, and technologically unproven and unreliable alternatives would undoubtedly slow the US economy and potentially lead to energy shortages--with lines stretched around the block at gas stations, brownouts, and air-conditions that wouldn't work on the hottest days of the year because of blackouts.

But the Obama administration didn't care about the economic consequences. In fact, the Obama-appointed EPA administrator, Lisa Jackson, said openly: "Economic consequences aren't my job."

Source: Last Line of Defense, by Ken Cuccinelli, p.173 , Feb 12, 2013

Plenty of doubt whether global warming science is "settled"

Because I requested the EPA actually support its research with credible data, I was accused of being anti-science, which surprises me, as science is--or at least used to be--all about the data. I was a big proponent of data! As a former engineer (I was one before I became an attorney), I have a great respect for science: the scientific method, the certainties of the laws of physics, and the OBJECTIVE quest for truth.

I wasn't arguing whether global warming existed. What I was saying was that there was plenty of doubt that the science was "settled." And when the science was tainted by politics and money, and facts go ignored or hidden in the name of advancing a political agenda, it was no longer science--well, maybe political science. And when laws were broken in the process and states were told to merely step aside and accept it, that was when state attorneys general were in a position to stand up for the law. My critics said I had a lawsuit against protecting the planet.

Source: Last Line of Defense, by Ken Cuccinelli, p.187 , Feb 12, 2013

We exhale CO2 every day; it's not a killer

In 2009, the EPA used discredited and politicized data it borrowed from the UN to declare that carbon dioxide and the other greenhouse gases like methane were pollutants dangerous to public health because they allegedly caused global warming. Yet carbon dioxide is what we exhale every second of every day. It keeps the trees alive and allows them to make the oxygen that keeps us alive. It's a wonderful symbiotic system that sustains life on earth.

But to environmentalists, carbon dioxide is a slow killer. And by declaring it a pollutant, the EPA could regulate its emission from everything from power-generating plants, to factories and office buildings, to individual cars and trucks. In other words, with this single declaration, the EPA was able to put a massive part of the US economy under its control under the guise of stopping global warming.

Source: Last Line of Defense, by Ken Cuccinelli, p. 10-11 , Feb 12, 2013

EPA's cap-and-trade policy is based on junk science

In 2009, when President Obama saw that even a Democratic controlled Congress might have trouble passing a cap-and-trade law to force the first-ever limit on America's carbon dioxide emissions, he decided to have his EPA come up with its own version of cap-and-trade--one that didn't have to go through lawmakers to get approved.

The problem was, the EPA version was based on junk science borrowed from the UN, and the ensuring excessive regulations would eventually so tightly regulate the American economy that they were going to permanently push companies and jobs out of the US; force people to drive less, health and cool their homes less, and use their appliance less; and raise the cost of consumer goods and energy for the average family by thousands of dollars a year.

Source: Last Line of Defense, by Ken Cuccinelli, p.168 , Feb 12, 2013

Opposes tailpipe emission rules for CO2 reductions

Cuccinelli said on Jan. 17th, 2011 in a speech to Tea Party activists, that EPA tailpipe emissions rules, "if fully implemented with all the regulations that go with it, they will keep the temperature from rising nearly 5/100 of a degree Fahrenheit. By 2050."

Only 0.05 degrees by 2050? Is that really what the EPA was claiming these rules would do? The EPA's massive document on greenhouse gas emission standards, page 4-101, said: "EPA modeled the anticipated potential effect on climate change and found that in year 2100, the rule would reduce temperature increases by 0.006-0.015 degrees Celsius," based on pushing fuel efficiency from 33.8 mpg up to 39.5 mpg.

Those Celsius figures translate to a range from 0.011 to 0.027 degrees Fahrenheit. He actually erred in the agency's favor by overstating the size of projected reductions. He also missed the date, but again erred in the EPA's favor. Because his mistakes were minor and in the EPA's favor, we rate his claim as True.

Source: PolitiFact.com on 2013 Virginia governor debates , Jan 28, 2011

Other governors on Energy & Oil: Ken Cuccinelli on other issues:
VA Gubernatorial:
Bob McDonnell
Robert Sarvis
Terry McAuliffe
VA Senatorial:
Mark Warner
Tim Kaine

Newly seated 2013:
IN: Mike Pence (R)
NC: Pat McCrory (R)
NH: Maggie Hassan (D)
MT: Steve Bullock (D)
WA: Jay Inslee (D)

Re-elected 2012:
DE: Jack Markell (D)
MO: Jay Nixon (D)
ND: Jack Dalrymple (R)
UT: Gary Herbert (R)
VT: Peter Shumlin (D)
WI: Scott Walker (R)
WV: Earl Ray Tomblin (D)

Up for election 2013:
NJ-R: Chris Christie
NJ-D: Barbara Buono
VA: Bob McDonnell(Retiring)
VA-R: Ken Cuccinelli
VA-D: Terry McAuliffe
Up for re-election 2014:
AK: Sean Parnell
AL: Robert Bentley
AR: Mike Beebe
AZ: Jan Brewer
CA: Jerry Brown
CO: John Hickenlooper
CT: Dan Malloy
FL: Rick Scott
GA: Nathan Deal
HI: Neil Abercrombie
IA: Terry Branstad
ID: Butch Otter
IL: Pat Quinn
KS: Sam Brownback
MA: Deval Patrick
MD: Martin O'Malley
ME: Paul LePage
MI: Rick Snyder
MN: Mark Dayton
NH: Maggie Hassan
NM: Susana Martinez
NV: Brian Sandoval
NY: Andrew Cuomo
OH: John Kasich
OK: Mary Fallin
OR: John Kitzhaber
PA: Tom Corbett
RI: Linc Chafee
SC: Nikki Haley
SD: Dennis Daugaard
TN: Bill Haslam
TX: Rick Perry
VT: Peter Shumlin
WI: Scott Walker
WY: Matt Mead
Abortion
Budget/Economy
Civil Rights
Corporations
Crime
Drugs
Education
Energy/Oil
Environment
Families/Children
Foreign Policy
Free Trade
Govt. Reform
Gun Control
Health Care
Homeland Security
Immigration
Infrastructure/Technology
Jobs
Principles/Values
Social Security
Tax Reform
War/Iraq/Mideast
Welfare/Poverty

 

Page last updated: Oct 31, 2013