Search for...
Follow @ontheissuesorg
OnTheIssuesLogo

James Inhofe on Energy & Oil

Republican Sr Senator (OK)


FactCheck: Bush made change to "climate change," not Obama

Inhofe writes on p. 85, that after a series of blizzards in 2010, Al Gore commented, "Just as it's important not to miss the forest for the trees, neither should we miss the climate for the snowstorm." Inhofe adds, "The American people were suspicious to say the least, especially when they noticed a deliberate shift in terms over this period from catastrophic 'global warming' to 'climate change.'" Inhofe implies that the Obama administration made this rhetorical switch around 2009, in the post-Bush era. Is that true?

No, it's not; the switch was made during the Bush presidency. Our staffer, Jesse Gordon, worked as an EPA contractor in 2001-03, preparing content for the epa.gov website. Gordon reports, "During that period, word came down from EPA to change all instances of the term 'global warming' to 'climate change.'" That timing means that the Bush administration changed the rule from that of the Clinton administration; Obama & Gore had nothing to do with it, so Inhofe's implication is incorrect.

Source: OnTheIssues FactCheck on The Greatest Hoax, by James Inhofe , Feb 28, 2012

Stop cap-and-trade from getting in via regulatory back door

Even though global warming hysteria and cap and trade are long dead, the fight is far from over because President Obama is now moving forward with a plan to achieve through regulation what could not be achieved through legislation. In December of 2009, the Obama EPA issued what it called the "endangerment finding"--a finding that greenhouse gases harm public health and welfare. Armed with this "finding" the EPA is planning to regulate greenhouse gases instead through the Clean Air Act, which was never meant to regulate carbon. Like cap and trade, this plan will have the same $300-$400 billion pricetag, it will put the same amount of jobs in jeopardy, and it will cause the same amount of havoc for our economy. My fight today is to stop them from achieving this cap and trade agenda through the back door.
Source: The Greatest Hoax, by James Inhofe, p. ix , Feb 28, 2012

Restricting fossil fuels will not spur shift to other energy

Under cap and trade, each regulated entity may only emit a certain amount of carbon, and if it exceeds that limit, it can buy credits from other entities that are not exceeding their limits. Of course, higher emitting entities such as coal-fired power plants, would have to purchase a large number of credits to continue business as usual.

Of course, the philosophy behind cap and trade is that if we restrict enough supply of fossil fuels, the price will increase, and we can then simply shift to less costly alternatives. Yet this is wishful thinking. Alternatives are fine, but in most cases, they aren't widely available or commercially viable yet--certainly not in a form that can efficiently, affordably, and reliably meet our existing energy needs. How are we supposed to run this machine called America without proven and reliable sources such as oil, coal, and natural gas? The answer is we can't.

Source: The Greatest Hoax, by James Inhofe, p. 47 , Feb 28, 2012

God promised to maintain cold & hot seasons

I take my religion seriously--I always say I'm a Jesus guy--so why wasn't I buying into what evangelists such as Rev. Richard Cizik were saying? Cizik was being sponsored by many environmentalist groups who were pushing the idea that evangelicals were on board with global warming hysteria.

Many times during my global warming fight, I turned to Day 36 of "Promises" which features one of my favorite Bible verses, Genesis 8:22:

And this is what a lot of alarmists forget: God is still up there, and He promised to maintain the seasons and that cold and heat would never cease as long as the earth remains.
Source: The Greatest Hoax, by James Inhofe, p. 68-71 , Feb 28, 2012

Fight cap-and-trade on jobs, taxes, and gas prices

The Lieberman-Warner cap and trade bill in December 2007 was the 1st time a cap and trade bill ever made it through the Environment and Public Works Committee.

A nonpartisan analysis of the bill revealed it would result in $4 trillion to $6 trillion in welfare costs over 40 years and up to $1 trillion per year by 2050. I carried around a memo with 4 themes based solely on economics. They were taxes, jobs, gas prices, and nuclear power. The themes quickly got the attention of the American people and my fellow Republican colleagues, setting the stage for the economic debate on the Waxman-Markey bill later in 2009 and 2010.

The news hit them hard: "Government studies confirm this bill will only raise gas prices"; "$6.7 trillion in the form of higher gasoline and electricity bills"; "1.8 million jobs lost by 2020 and 4 million by 2030 according to the National Association of Manufacturers." The economic impacts of the bill drove the debate.

Source: The Greatest Hoax, by James Inhofe, p. 99-101 , Feb 28, 2012

Yes, we can produce our way to energy security

On October 23, 2009, just weeks after cap and trade--a bill that would force Americans into policies of energy austerity--came to the Senate a report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) revealed for the 1st time that America's combined recoverable natural gas, oil, and coal endowment is the largest on Earth.

I requested the report along with Senator Lisa Murkowski because we had grown tired of the Democrats' refrain that America only has 3% of global oil reserves--which, according to this view, meant more drilling and production at home would be futile. The 3% mantra is their bread and butter talking point.

But the non-partisan CRS shows the full, complete, accurate picture of America's resources--and shows that, yes, we can produce our way to energy security.

Knowing what vast resources literally lay at our feet, it seemed all the more outrageous that we were even considering such drastic measures to limit access to these resources.

Source: The Greatest Hoax, by James Inhofe, p.115-116 , Feb 28, 2012

China & India oppose binding carbon emission cuts

Let's go back to 2003. In my speech, I told the conference that the Senate would not ratify Kyoto. Here's what I said: "The Senate, by a vote of 95 to 0, approved the Byrd-Hagel resolution, which warned the President against signing a treaty that would either economically harm the US or exempt developing countries from participating."

Is that still true today? Of course it is. And yet here we go again: China, India, and other developing countries want nothing to do with absolute, binding emissions cuts. China and India have pledged to reduce the rate of growth, or intensity, of their emissions. But that's not acceptable to the US Senate. Moreover, China is opposed to a mandatory verification regime to prove it is actually honoring its commitments.

Source: The Greatest Hoax, by James Inhofe, p.143-144 , Feb 28, 2012

Introduced Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011

In March 2011, I introduced S.482, the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011, along with Congressman Fred Upton, Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, who introduced the same bill in the House. The Energy Tax Prevention Act stops the Obama EPA's backdoor cap and trade regulations from taking effect: it protects jobs in America's manufacturing sector; protects consumers from higher energy costs; puts Congress in charge of the nation's climate change policies; and ensures that the public health provisions of the Clean Air Act are preserved.

[Opponents said] our bill should be called the "Big Polluter Protection Act." Contrary to the claims, our bill leaves all the essential provisions of the Clean Air Act intact. It simply prevents the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases which are not harmful to human health. Imposing energy taxes through EPA's cap & trade regulations and blocking economic development won't make Americans healthier--it will only mean fewer jobs, & a higher cost of living.

Source: The Greatest Hoax, by James Inhofe, p.158-159 , Feb 28, 2012

Solyndra symbolizes Obama's war on American fossil fuel jobs

President Obama announced that as part of his clean energy push, "You show us the best ideas to change your game on the ground; we'll show you the money. We will show you the money."

The solar company Solyndra was one of those companies that was shown the money at the beginning of Obama's presidency, as it was a recipient of the stimulus under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. At the time, Solyndra was touted as the model to follow by the Administration for its green energy economy.

Now as the country struggles with unemployment and Solyndra has completely collapsed and gone bankrupt, it is clear that the President's policies of "showing the money" has meant throwing the money away. In the end, Solyndra is more than just a bankrupt company: it is a metaphor for the failure of Obama's war on affordable energy and American fossil fuel jobs.

Source: The Greatest Hoax, by James Inhofe, p.162-163 , Feb 28, 2012

Man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever

Since 2003, when I stood alone on the Senate floor and declared that man-made catastrophic global warming was the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people, the credibility of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)--which claimed to have a "consensus" on global warming--has eroded; cap & trade is dead and never to be resurrected, and, the belief that anthropogenic global warming is leading to catastrophe is all but forgotten. One might feel a bit sorry for Al Gore. Almost
Source: The Greatest Hoax, by James Inhofe, p. v , Feb 28, 2012

Stand strong against mandatory cap-and-trade

The President continues to stand strong against mandatory cap-and-trade legislation that raises the price of gas at the pump, increases the price of energy in American homes and takes away American jobs. The President is rightly committed to opposing any international treaties that do not include all the major world economies.
Source: Press release, “State of the Union” , Jan 28, 2008

Voted YES on barring EPA from regulating greenhouse gases.

Congressional Summary:To prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from promulgating any regulation concerning the emission of a greenhouse gas to address climate change. The Clean Air Act is amended by adding a section entitled, "No Regulation of Emissions of Greenhouse Gases". In this section, the term 'greenhouse gas' means any of the following:
  1. Water vapor
  2. Carbon dioxide
  3. Methane
  4. Nitrous oxide
  5. Sulfur hexafluoride
  6. Hydrofluorocarbons
  7. Perfluorocarbons
  8. Any other substance subject to, or proposed to be subject to regulation to address climate change.
The definition of the term 'air pollutant' does not include a greenhouse gas, except for purposes of addressing concerns other than climate change.

Proponent's Argument for voting Yes:
[Sen. McConnell, R-KY]: The White House is trying to impose a backdoor national energy tax through the EPA. It is a strange way to respond to rising gas prices. But it is perfectly consistent with the current Energy Secretary's previously stated desire to get gas prices in the US up to where they are in Europe.

Opponent's Argument for voting No:
[Sen. Lautenberg, D-NJ]:We hear the message that has been going around: Let's get rid of the EPA's ability to regulate. Who are they to tell us what businesses can do? Thank goodness that in this democratic society in which we live, there are rules and regulations to keep us as a civilized nation. The Supreme Court and scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency agreed that the Clean Air Act is a tool we must use to stop dangerous pollution. This amendment, it is very clear, favors one group--the business community. The Republican tea party politicians say: "Just ignore the Supreme Court. Ignore the scientists. We know better." They want to reward the polluters by crippling EPA's ability to enforce the Clean Air Act.
Status: Failed 50-50 (3/5

Reference: Energy Tax Prevention Act; Bill Am183 to S.49 ; vote number 11-SV054 on Apr 6, 2011

Voted YES on protecting middle-income taxpayers from a national energy tax.