Jackson Free Press

Today, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee begins major hearings exploring how to reduce global warming and build a clean energy economy. The Waxman-Markey bills and related legislation is on the agenda. At the top of the Republican witness list is Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, according to the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Barbour has long been an advocate for big polluting companies, and has reaped political and financial benefits from these efforts. His record makes him an obvious choice to speak in opposition to clean energy policies:
…
The oil & gas and utility industries were major contributor to his Mississippi gubernatorial campaigns, providing over $1.8 million in campaign cash. … According to the Center for Responsive Politics, coal companies and electric utilities lavished over half a million dollars on Barbour's firm during his last two years as CEO and chairman, in 1998 and 1999. … [T]he firm made over a million dollars a year in dirty energy profits by the time he left … for his 2003 gubernatorial run, with $2.24 million in total for 2001-2002.

The story goes on to cite a few of the ways that the governor's political ties have provided millions to the Republican Party, including $30 million in contributions from the oil and gas industry and his connections to the Southern Company, a "top-spending special interest" that owns coal-fired power plants and has a force of 63 lobbyists.

Barbour, dubbed a "dirty-energy lobbyist" by CAPAF, is "a long-standing opponent of clean energy and health safeguards" and has "lobbied to weaken clean air act safeguards."

The new head of the (Republican Governors Association) is an apt choice to testify in opposition of pollution reductions. He has made his livelihood from representing big utilities and big oil's interests. He continues to do so as Governor of Mississippi. Barbour has no proposals of his own to address global warming, even though unchecked pollution will mean more devastating hurricanes like Katrina that flattened his state in 2005. Like many other conservatives, he would pursue the reckless path of inaction on the greatest threat ever known to the planet.

The Think Progress story provides citations to support each of the stories' claims, from sources including The Washington Times, Dallas Morning Times and the Center for Responsive Politics, among others.

The governor's office did not immediately respond to our calls.

Previous Commentsshow

Thank you Governor Barbour for providing a much needed voice of reason in this debate.

kudzuking

Jul 7 2009

Really, kudzuking? What part of advocating for polluting oil and gas companies, opposing clean energy sources and weakening clean air safeguards is "the voice of reason?"

Ronni_Mott

Jul 7 2009

LOL... What a headline. Why didn't you just ask him when he stopped beating his wife?

WMartin

Jul 7 2009

Nothing Barbour has ever done in the energy arena shows any disposition toward green, clean, renewable energy, WMartin. To the contrary, he's all about keeping Big Oil happy. What the heck do you *think* he'll testify about? He's not there for the progressive team; he never has been.

Ronni_Mott

Jul 7 2009

I don't know, but my crystal ball is broken. Can I use yours?

WMartin

Jul 7 2009

WMartin, honestly, do you think he's suddenly going to change his tune? It doesn't require a crystal ball; just the common sense God gave ya.

Ronni_Mott

Jul 7 2009

Wmartin, considering Barbour's many recent, grossly irresponsible statements on this issue, no crystal ball is necessary. Have you forgotten his claptrap on Cap and Trade legislation, in which he presented absurd cost estimates to try to scuttle the bill? Anyone who babbles "drill baby drill" to suggest that the United States can produce its way out of dependence on foreign oil has zero credibility in the energy debate.

Brian C Johnson

Jul 7 2009

Saw a little of his testifying while I was having chemo this morning. The little I saw he was talking about was about the jobs that would be created by building a nuclear power plant in Mississippi and the boost to the economy of Mississipi, nary a word about oil and gas companies from what I saw.

BubbaT

Jul 7 2009

You are probably right Ronni, that he will not toe the progressive party line. Does that mean that every idea that doesn't is an idea against clean energy? I don't think that either. No matter what the progressive party says. Is this an opinion piece or just one masquerading as news?

WMartin

Jul 7 2009

It's a report about what can be expected from Barbour in regards to energy policy, WMartin, based on published reports of his past actions. Nuclear energy is NOT green, renewable energy. In Mississippi, nuclear is supported by the electric power companies, yet another one of Haley's favorite backers. If they don't advocate for nuclear, they're advocating for coal plants. There's a great idea for clean energy—not. Talking about "jobs" is just political double-speak. Jobs at the cost of what? Trillions spent on nuclear plants or additional pollution from coal? We can do better.

Ronni_Mott

Jul 7 2009

"Progressive" isn't a political party, WMartin. As such, there is no "progressive party line." Progressive \Pro*gress"ive\, a. [Cf. F. progressif.] 1. Moving forward; proceeding onward; advancing; evincing progress; increasing; as, progressive motion or course; -- opposed to retrograde. 2. Improving; as, art is in a progressive state. As a progressive, I'd like to see our country move forward with our energy policy, not stay stuck in the last century's fossil fuel addictions and consumerist overindulgences that have brought us to this point. I don't really give a flying fig which political party can do it. But, then again, trying to find a progressive Republican is damn difficult. ;-) A national green, clean energy policy (besides just possibly alleviating a global crises given that the U.S. uses more than quarter of the world's fossil fuels with less than 5 percent of its population) can also provide jobs, despite Barbour's insistence that those can only be had through dirty energy. The problem with Barbour is that he's the mouthpiece of Big Business, which makes him an exemplary Republican, but not a progressive. Big Business only exists for profit; it has no conscience and accepts no responsibility. It does not want to change, and will not unless forced to do so. Big Business is also not progressive. Just out of curiosity, I googled "progressive antonym", which turned up the following on MSN Encarta: reactionary (adj) Synonyms: backward-looking, conservative, illiberal, unreceptive, unreasonable, intolerant, bigoted, intransigent, diehard, medieval, prehistoric, outdated Aren't words fun?

Ronni_Mott

Jul 7 2009

Indeed, they are. :-) Main Entry: party Part of Speech: noun Definition: gang, group Synonyms: assembly, ... team, Main Entry: liberal Part of Speech: adjective Definition: progressive

WMartin

Jul 7 2009

WMartin, there was a Progressive Party, but that's not what people are talking about when they progressive. In New York, there is a Conservative Party, but that's not what they mean when they say conservative. By the way, what are you citing? Cite your sources like a good little blogger. I feel like you're being obfuscatory just to get a rise out of Ronni. It's obnoxious.

Brian C Johnson

Jul 7 2009

And your dig about it being an opinion piece is really dense considering all the factual material cited in the story itself. You didn't like the headline. Do you have substantive criticism, or are you going to go on suggesting that Barbour might actually support clean energy, which is a farce?

Brian C Johnson

Jul 7 2009

I googled the synonyms for party and liberal which I thought would be pretty clear. I found the results on Thesaurus.com. I sure you will find they are correct. No obfuscation was intended, either to be obnoxious or otherwise. If it's your opinion or the opinion of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, which I'm sure is a completely non-biased non-partisan organization, that the Guv is gonna say X, wouldn't an article about that be an opinion piece? Is your opinion news in the bold new blogosphere? The only news of what actually happened was provided by BubbaT and being for Nuclear energy isn't exactly being against clean energy is it?

WMartin

Jul 7 2009

Here is Barbour's prepared statement, pt. 1: Statement of Governor Haley Barbour, State of Mississippi, Before the Committee on Environment and Public Works, United States Senate, July 7, 2009 Madam Chairman, Senator Inhofe and committee members: Thank you for inviting me to testify before you on the critical issues of energy policy and America’s future. America’s future is so tied to out energy policy that this hearing could be held before the Senate Armed Services, Foreign Relations, Finance, Energy or Budget Committee and be equally important and relevant to their work. Energy policy significantly impacts every aspect of American foreign and domestic policy. Energy is the lifeblood of our economy; our national security depends on it. When we consider energy policy, it must be in the broadest context. As we all know, our country is in the worst economic crisis in decades. It is being felt at the kitchen table of every family, as unemployment is at the highest rate since 1983. Our government is vastly increasing our national debt to get our economy “back on track.” Even though everyone knows the national debt is increasing at an unsustainable rate, we are taking the risk because robust economic growth is the only way to solve our economic problems. Yet, as we strive to get our economy back growing and more Americans back on the job, our government is considering an energy policy, as set up in the Waxman-Markey bill and the President’s budget, that would make it much harder for the economy to grow; a policy that is, in fact, anti-growth because it will necessarily and purposefully raise the costs of energy for families and businesses, especially manufacturing…for our economy as a whole. The cap and trade tax, the $81 billion of tax increases on the oil and gas industry contained in the President’s budget and the Waxman-Markey renewable energy standard would all drive up costs and drive down economic growth. Don’t take my word for it. President Obama, then a candidate, said to the San Francisco Chronicle in January 2008, “Under my cap and trade plan, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” And before becoming Energy Secretary, Steven Chu told the Wall Street Journal in September 2008, “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.” President Obama’s OMB Director, Peter Orszag, in April 2008 said, “Under a cap-and-trade program, firms would not ultimately bear most of the costs of the allowances but instead would pass them along to their customers in the form of higher prices. Such price increases would stem from the restriction on emissions and would occur regardless of whether the government sold emission allowances or gave them away. Indeed, the price increases would be essential to the success of a cap-and-trade program because they would be the most important mechanism through which businesses and households would be encouraged to make investment and behavioral changes that reduced CO2 emissions.” Just last month in an interview with Forbes magazine, the CEO of American Electric Power (AEP), Mike Morris, said the cap and trade tax would cause his electricity rates to go up 30% to 50%. The gigantic effect of energy policy on American life means Congress should work particularly hard to ensure Americans know the facts about the policies Congress is considering: To the contrary, the House of Representatives added more than 300 pages of its 1200 page energy bill just a few hours before it was brought to the floor and passed. This is just the opposite of what is needed.

Brian C Johnson

Jul 7 2009

Barbour's introductory statement, pt. 2: Last month the Southern Growth Policies Board, a forty-year old regional economic development group for thirteen states, held its annual conference. The more than four hundred attendees were most concerned about the costs associated with the cap and trade tax, the renewable energy mandate and the $81 billion in tax increases on the oil and gas industry. They were concerned about the costs to families as well as the costs to the economy. At this conference there was a great deal of support for conservation and energy efficiency-both indispensable measures in our energy future-and a lot of hope and confidence was expressed for renewables like wind, biofuels, solar and even some more exotic sources in the future. Nevertheless, it was agreed that for a long time there will be a need for traditional fuels like oil, gas, coal and nuclear, which generates no greenhouse gas emissions. Clean coal technologies and projects were presented and praised. But the biggest and most discussed issue at this conference was the cost of energy policy proposals like the cap and trade tax, the renewable electricity standard and the tax increases proposed for the oil and gas industry. There was no question about who would bear these costs: the consumer. The one who turns on the light switch, starts the washing machine, fuels up the car with gas or drives the truck delivering goods across town for across the country; that is who will pay. Moreover, these increased energy costs will hit small businesses hard and will particularly hurt energy-intensive industries like manufacturing or computer processing. Some manufacturers even predicted these energy policies would cause electricity rate increases that would make their U.S. manufacturing facilities uncompetitive compared to facilities in China, India, Brazil or Russia. Dan DiMicco, the CEO of Nucor Steel, America’s largest steel manufacturer, said the cap and trade tax would mean his company would close U.S. plants, shifting production to China. Making a ton of steel in China results in five-times grater emissions of greenhouse gases than to produce that same ton of steel in the U.S.

Brian C Johnson

Jul 7 2009

Barbour's introductory statement, pt. 3: It is hard to believe that at a time when growing our economy is our number one priority, Congress is considering a bill that would reduce economic growth. When families are suffering because of a serious recession, Congress is considering a bill to drive up the cost of electricity that cools those families’ homes and the gasoline that runs their cars. As U.S. manufacturing faces stiff foreign competition, Congress is considering a bill that would make our manufacturers less competitive. The concerns I’ve cited are serious, even if the cap and trade tax works as planned. But many Americans worry it will be an Enron-style financial scheme where Wall Street manipulators make giant profits while ratepayers, motorists and Main Street businesses pay greatly increased costs. Environmentalists rightly worry about the assumed large scale use of international offsets, saying they are not verifiable. Others say the foreign offsets are claimed by CBO to reduce the price of allowances by 70%, but that’s highly questionable. A particularly scary feature of the cap and trade tax regime is that anyone can purchase emissions permits. There is nothing to stop a large government like China from investing heavily in CO2 emission permits instead of U.S. Treasuries. The effect, of course, would be that U.S.-located industries could not buy those permits or that they would have to pay much higher prices for the permits, thereby making our businesses even more uncompetitive with foreign (read: Chinese) manufacturers. Market manipulation by speculators is bad enough; driving up demand and prices by foreign competitors is anathema. The right energy policy for our country is more American energy, using all sources of American energy…all of the above. We have abundant, affordable, reliable American energy. Let’s use it rather than having a policy that makes energy more expensive. I’d be glad to discuss more American energy during questions or to try to answer any other questions.

Brian C Johnson

Jul 7 2009

WMartin- Can a lobbist group be non-biased non-partisan organization? Isn't the Center for American Progress Action Fund a lobbiest group? According to Wiki -the only source I could find online about them other than their own website which does say they are a 501(c) fund "Formerly known simply as the American Progress Action Fund, the Center for American Progress Action Fund is a "sister advocacy organization" and is organizationally and financially separate from the Center for American Progress, although they share many staff and a physical address. Whereas the Center for American Progress is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, the fund is a 501(c)(4), allowing it to devote more funds to lobbying" Guess being a lobbist is ok only if you agree with them.

BubbaT

Jul 7 2009

Like Exxon, Barbour is happy to express "a lot of hope" about renewable energy, as long as absolutely nothing is done to actually support the development of renewable energy. Instead, we should use our "abundant" American energy, i.e. fossil fuels. We should support this mythical beast called "clean coal" technology. And we should invest in nuclear energy, which is "clean" only if you don't count radioactive waste. It is certainly not renewable. I guess my real question for you WMartin is: Who are you trying to kid?

Brian C Johnson

Jul 7 2009

He was being sarcastic, Bubba, but it's all beside the point anyway. Barbour's ties to the energy industry are not in dispute. The campaign contributions were reported by the Center for Responsive Politics, which is nonpartisan. WMartin is just waving his arms around, telling us he's about to take flight.

Brian C Johnson

Jul 7 2009

You mean factual material like this? even though unchecked pollution will mean more devastating hurricanes like Katrina that flattened his state in 2005. Like many other conservatives, he would pursue the reckless path of inaction on the greatest threat ever known to the planet. That is not a fact it's their opinion with a little hyperbole thrown in at the end for effect. I guess Nuclear War has pegged down a notch or two since the cold war ended. Thus, although variability is large, trends associated with human influences are evident in the environment in which hurricanes form, and our physical understanding suggests that the intensity of and rainfalls from hurricanes are probably increasing (8), even if this increase cannot yet be proven with a formal statistical test. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/308/5729/1753

WMartin

Jul 7 2009

Brian's right Bubba I was being sarcastic. I don't know about the take flight part though. Is it too much to ask that a newspaper have news in the news pages? I suppose it is nowadays. I wasn't so much supporting the Governor's position as questioning the hit piece while some important hearings are going on. But why have hearings or debate anything? We can just get the Center for American Progress to set policy. Because anyone who questions it is obviously against a livable earth. Guess being a lobbist is ok only if you agree with them. Exactly Bubba ;-) The headline should be "Pot calls kettle black"

WMartin

Jul 7 2009

WMartin- The sarcasm was noted, was aking more for your opinion.

BubbaT

Jul 7 2009

I don't believe a lobbyist group can be non biased, by definition they are advocating for one position over another. This particular one is headed by John Podesta former Chief of Staff for President Clinton. I don't really have a huge problem with lobbyist groups in general. To have a hearing on something as important and far reaching as this, the energy companies and those groups concerned about the environment should have their voices heard. Lobbyists play that role. My opinion about Barbour's actual comments (Thanks for posting them Brian) is that he did bring up some good points that need to be addressed. Is this a good time to raise energy costs? We are in the midst of an economic crisis. Something has to be done, but is crippling our economy by raising energy costs exponentially the only way to solve the problem? Would that actually happen? Would cap and trade have any effect on overall global emissions? The only way to find out is to have a real debate with facts. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Choose&Hearing_id=36d4e3a5-802a-23ad-46dc-18337864995f This is the link to the video of the hearing. The guv's testimony starts at 181:03. Haley actually says that he agrees that Co2 emissions are a danger. Personally, I am more worried about Senator Inhofe he is still going on about there being no consensus among scientists on the dangers of human effects on climate change.

WMartin

Jul 8 2009

I think the headline would have been better had it been "Barbour Testifies Against Clean Energy Legislation". There is no question that he has done that. I guess part of the question is how seriously you want to take Barbour's more inflammatory claims. For example, I realize that "exponential" increases in energy costs is WMartin's term rather than Barbour's, but it's clear that his testimony is designed to raise just that fear. However, a 50 percent increase, which is the scary number produced by the energy industry, is not "exponential." That's hyperbole. Regarding costs, it comes down to whether you want to believe the energy industry, which has tremendous incentives to lie, or the CBO and the EPA? The former claims that the cap and trade bill will cost an average of $175 per family per year by 2020. The latter claims it will cost about $100. Does that sound exponential to you? As for Barbour's concerns about "Enron-style manipulation" of CO2 allowances by China, it's always nice to see Barbour mount his reliable steed Xenophobia. But the claim is worse than stupid.

Brian C Johnson

Jul 8 2009

Here's a story on the CBO cost analysis. Here's a story on the EPA cost analysis.

Brian C Johnson

Jul 8 2009

Fair enough Brian, so you don't see any validity to claims that higher energy prices may drive jobs overseas or that the Chinese government might invest in CO2 allowances to manipulate the market? Also, watching the hearing it seems there is some bi-partisan support, at least in the committee, for building more Nuclear Power plants. Senator Alexander is calling for 100 to be built. Should a comprehensive energy policy include more Nuclear Power, at least until more clean renewable energy technology is available, to begin to replace existing coal fired power plants and start to reduce emissions of CO2?

WMartin

Jul 8 2009

I anxiously await the opportunity to vote against Governor Barbour in whatever race he enters next.

Jeffery R

Jul 8 2009

The short answer is no, I don't see any validity to claims that higher energy prices will drive jobs overseas, and talk of the Chinese manipulating the energy market is just scary talk. If you look at the price of oil, the problem has been manipulation by American financial institutions. Proper regulation can manage both problems. Besides, it doesn't really make sense that the Chinese would buy up CO2 allowances. In essence, they would be subsidizing American energy production. Their products are already considerably cheaper than ours. So how is that "argument" even worthy of the name? Moreover, the bill the House passed includes a provision for imposing tariffs on imported goods from countries that do not limit carbon emissions. Whether that provision will make it into the law is an open question. As for nuclear power, I have three problems with it. First, it is not renewable, so while it is better than coal, it is not as good as wind or solar. Second, no method of energy production has been as heavily subsidized as nuclear energy. If we had put even a fraction of the money into solar technology that we've dumped into nuclear energy, we would be much better off. I would rather see us invest our resources in more viable long-term technologies. Third, until we have addressed the problem of waste disposal, nuclear energy is fatally flawed. Radioactive waste is essentially treated as an externality by the industry. So the industry produces radioactive waste, but disposing of it is a public problem. Nuclear energy is corporate welfare on a scale that dwarfs our investment in truly renewable energy, and I just don't think it's worth it.

Brian C Johnson

Jul 8 2009