Waxman-Markey Not a Solution to Climate Change

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, the ranking Republican member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, today expressed concern with passage of the Waxman-Markey climate change bill and criticized the process by which it was considered in the House of Representatives.

 

“This bill was forced through the House in a process designed to minimize open, transparent debate and preclude a thorough analysis of what the bill actually does,” Murkowski said.  “Elected officials and the public needed a chance to read through the entire bill and consider its merits

 

“The cost of this legislation remains staggering, and the mechanisms within the bill to contain those costs are inadequate. Climate change is a problem we should address, but we must do so in a responsible manner that will safeguard our economy.”

 

Analyses of the Waxman-Markey bill, which passed the House Friday night, vary widely in their estimated costs to consumers and the economy.  They also fail to take into account the many last minute special deals for special interests inserted into the bill.

 

“The energy bill passed out of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee last week was the result of months of bipartisan work,” Murkowski said.  “In contrast, the Waxman-Markey bill was written by a few Democrat leaders in the House and moved forward in a process allowing for little discussion or input from Republicans.”

 

The bill combines a flawed cap-and-trade program with equally problematic energy provisions.  The minutia of detail in the bill would insert the Federal government in how each of us leads our daily lives.  In addition, the absence of provisions to facilitate the deployment of clean, affordable base-load nuclear power and increased domestic oil and gas development is contradictory to the goals of a clean energy future and energy independence.

 

“To pass a bill that will so affect each of our lives, without most of the Representatives knowing the details of what they were voting for, is wrong and dangerous.” Murkowski continued.  “I’m concerned this bill wound up more about passing a bill for political purposes than meaningfully lowering greenhouse gases.”

 

####