graves, g Rep LA 6% 700K$

ETP xl

html reasonable

trying for apostate?

mofo (well does not quite blame biden for invasion tho other do see energy dominance]

https://republicans-climatecrisis.house.gov/news/press-releases/icymi-graves-slams-bidens-failed-energy-policies-have-emboldened-putin

no lnx

gRAVES SLAMS BIDEN'S FAILED ENERGY POLICIES THAT HAVE EMBOLDENED PUTIN AND HARMED AMERICAN FAMILIES

Mar 8, 2022 Press Release

WASHINGTON, D.C. – House Select Climate Committee Ranking Member Garret Graves (R-LA) participated in the House GOP press conference on the Biden administration’s self-inflicted energy crisis and decision to ban Russian oil imports.

Click here to watch his full remarks]vid?]

"President Biden is announcing a ban on Russian oil. I welcome the Democrats' attention to this issue. This is something [Republicans] have been trying to do – not for days, weeks, months, but for years. Every single time Democrats have opposed our efforts through amendments or through motions to recommit in order to wean ourselves off of Russian energy. During the Biden administration we have seen a near tripling of dependence upon Russian crude oil.

And using today's prices coming out to approximately $25 million [more] every single day that we're sending Vladimir Putin for his Ukraine aggression and other activities that are simply contrary to human rights, contrary to freedom, and contrary to democracy. We're certainly calling on the administration – not just to ban Russian oil – but to come and truly have an ... American energy strategy. Because even under this administration they're projecting a 50 percent increase in global energy demand.It is inexcusable for us to be doubling and tripling down on the failed energy strategies of California, in the European Union, and others that have tried to mindlessly migrate toward these renewable energy strategies without a cohesive plan. ... We’ve got to chart a better course for American citizens that are being harmed by these incredible prices."

AN 7 26

Former LA congressman Garrett Graves got himself bushwhacked by a panel that included a Republican strategist after he refused to admit that Democratic Georgia Senators were legitimately elected to their seats.

“I mean, congressman, do you think that Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff were duly elected?” demanded CNN anchor Kasie Hunt after confronting the possibility that Trump may publicly call both senators illegitimate due to bogus claims of election tampering.

But, like the vast majority of the modern Republican Party, Graves was leery of stating what countless judges have already declared, that the elections were legit.

“Um, I haven't gone in and studied the elections, but I haven't. Let me be clear on this: I have not seen—”

At that point the panel attacked.

“That should be an easy answer,” muttered panelist Charles M. Blow.

“There were three — there were paper ballots that were counted three separate times. How can you not say that they didn’t win there?” demanded Democratic strategist Meghan Hays.

“Because I haven't studied the Georgia elections,” Graves blurted.

“You don’t have to study the elections to know,” said Blow, publisher of the Blowstack Newsletter.

“But hang on. Let me let me answer the question that I was asked,” Graves insisted. “I was asked the question if I believed that they were elected. I haven't seen anything to the contrary. So, I've never, ever said that there was anything in question about those folks being elected.”

“When did we get to this point? And do you think it's good for America — so, have your opponents conceded to you? They called you and said, ‘hey, you know, like, thanks for a good race. Congratulations. You won.’ Like, when did it get to be so hard, right? Like sporting events are won and lost. So are elections.”

“Hey, I'm going to I'm going to agree with you,” said Graves. “I think that politics … is a blood sport. I think it's gotten out of hand. I'll be the first one to say that. I think closed primaries have absolutely made it worse, including in our home state. But, but I don't think that, um, the president coming in and presenting … new evidence is something that we should all be afraid of. Let us look at the evidence, let us judge it, and then decide if it's something that's actually, uh, that we need to take seriously and find safeguards to protect or prevent from happening.”

“Where is this evidence in the 43 lawsuits that he litigated and lost?” said Hays. “So why are we doing it now? I just don't understand.”

Graves then made an appeal to new evidence that may have “popped up.”

“If we found a way that a foreign government was influencing our elections and caused outcomes to be distorted, that's something every American, regardless of if you’re liberal or conservative, should be concerned about. Integrity in elections is critical,” he said”

“Just saying that somebody caused an outcome to be distorted is something an influencer can do. That's very different. Changing any part of the electoral system, changing votes, changing tallying. That is the question, and that is what Donald Trump has been suggesting. And that has never, ever been found,” said Blow. “And I find it personally upsetting about Georgia because I voted in that election where Warnock and Ossoff won. There was no influence that was making me say, oh, I'm going to just these just these two lines are cheating. But the rest of the votes are legitimate. That's insane.”

Former Trump White House Communications Director Republican strategist Alyssa Farah Griffin, who was advising the Georgia Republican Party in 2020, said she was hoping the incumbents’ GOP opponents would win, but they did not.

“They lost fair and square to Warnock and Ossoff,” said Griffin. “But I'd also note this: Donald Trump was legitimately elected in 2016. The Obama administration was overseeing the federal government in 2020. The Trump administration was overseeing the federal government in 2024 when it was the Biden administration [that won]. So he's basically saying that the failure to administer, at least at the federal level, the elections, the failure to stop these interferences only happened under his watch.”

“I don't think it's the flex for the Trump administration that he thinks it is, that the one election that was stolen in 2020 was when he was in power as president,” said Griffin.

an 4 23

Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) is poised to propose cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which supports millions of Americans — but many of his Republican colleagues doubt he'll be successful,Politico reports.

According to The Washington Post, over the last few weeks, the "GOP has focused its attention on two anti-poverty programs: Medicaid, which enrolls the poorest families in health insurance, and food stamps" — or SNAP — "which provide grocery benefits to those in need."

The Post reports:

[The GOP's] demands largely come in the context of a brewing fight over the federal budget. Many Republicans have said that federal aid programs offer a way for policymakers toboost U.S. workforce participation [3.5%?!] while saving Washington money — a stance that infuriates Democrats, aid workers and others, who say such changes could harm vulnerable families still reeling since the coronavirus pandemic.

READ MORE: 'Cowards': GOP pushes bill targeting food aid for the poor

However, Politico reports Senate Democrats are not going for it, having "said such measures are dead on arrival in the upper chamber, and with the help of key Senate Republicans, they have killed off a series of similar House GOP efforts over the years — including a 2018 push involving McCarthy and his current top debt limit lieutenant Rep. Garret Graves (R-LA)."

Politico notes "the early response from Senate Republicans this time around does not bode well for a different outcome in 2023.

An anonymous Republican lawmaker's aide said regarding the proposal, "I mean, Godspeed. Get what you can. We're going to live in reality over here."

Similarly, Politico adds Sen. John Boozman (R-AK), who is a lead on the Agriculture Committee the controls SNAP, said days "after the 2022 midterms that the effort 'would be difficult to pass in the Senate with 60 votes.'"

READ MORE: 'If it were Matt Gaetz': Florida Congressman floats cutting SNAP

Likewise, Sen. John Thune (R-SD) said of McCarthy's measure, "I'm sure it won't be easy" to achieve.

Politico reports:

Already, the talk of shrinking SNAP, which currently serves 41 million low-income Americans,is raising pressure on many Republicans that represent districts President Joe Biden won in 2020. Several of those members have raised internal concerns, especially about proposals from their colleagues that would add work requirements for some low-income parents who have children under 18 living at home, according to two other people involved in those conversations, who asked for anonymity to discuss internal caucus matters.

"The President has been clear that he will oppose policies that push Americans into poverty or cause them to lose health care," White House spokesman Michael Kikukawa said according to The Post. "That's why he opposes Republican proposals that would take food assistance and Medicaid away from millions of people by adding burdensome, bureaucratic requirements."

READ MORE: GOP ramps up cruel push for work requirements

Politico's full report is available at this link. The Washington Post's report is here (subscription required).

FROM YOUR SITE ARTICLES

Thanking Black Voters Means Saving the Social Safety Net ›

GOP taking budget advice from Trump official who wants to cut $2 trillion from Medicaid ›

'Poverty is a policy choice': Millions of Americans facing cuts to food aid ›

Climate science skeptics grasp for power in changing GOP

Nick Sobczyk, E&E News reporter

Published: Tuesday, March 10, 2020

Skeptics of mainstream climate science and hard-line conservatives think they still have a hold on the GOP, despite a recent rhetorical evolution among congressional Republicans.

Climate science skeptics grasp for power in changing GOP

MARCH 10, 2020

As originally published in E&E News.

By: Nick Sobczyk

March 10, 2020

Skeptics of mainstream climate science and hard-line conservatives think they still have a hold on the GOP, despite a recent rhetorical evolution among congressional Republicans.

It’s part of a battle for the soul of the party between hard-right organizations, such as the Club for Growth, and the newfangled and well-funded ecosystem of conservative clean energy groups, led most prominently by ClearPath and Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions.

There are abundant signs on Capitol Hill that people who question climate science are losing clout with Republicans. But they are insistent that not much has changed, particularly with President Trump still in the White House.

“I don’t think we’re losing much ground,” said Myron Ebell, a prominent energy advocate with the Competitive Enterprise Institute and a longtime opponent of the scientific consensus that greenhouse gases are warming the planet. Ebell helped lead Trump’s EPA transition team.

“I do think that there’s been more hand waving,” he added, “but I don’t think Republican voters have been influenced very much by the hand waving and the shouting.”

Party leadership on Capitol Hill would beg to differ. And even some Trump-loyal Republicans are happy to distance themselves from the climate science denial movement, even if they’re not willing to offer the kind of policies many experts say will be necessary to reduce the use of fossil fuels — the primary driver of climate change.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and his top energy deputies rolled out a package of small-ball climate change bills last month, pointing to polls that show younger voters increasingly worried about the issue.

None would reduce fossil fuel use, but they would aim to reduce emissions through carbon capture and sequestration (Greenwire, Feb. 12).

Meanwhile, Republicans on powerful committees such as Energy and Commerce have largely dropped outright climate denial for the kind of “energy innovation” talking points favored by CRES and ClearPath.

“Both sides now recognize climate is changing, temperature is increasing we need to do something about it,” said Energy and Commerce Committee ranking member Greg Walden (R-Ore.). “We’re just speaking out and making our own views known better, and there is more evidence.”

Policywise, what they’re doing is phenomenal and unbelievable and beyond anything we could have hoped. It truly is.

Marc Morano, director of communications at the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow]

The fact remains, however, that the Republican president frequently denies climate change and for a time employed a man — William Happer — tasked with performing a critical review of federal climate science.

For skeptics and libertarian ideologues alike who want to see the federal regulatory regime torn down, that’s an important audience.

“Policywise, what Andrew Wheeler is doing is phenomenal. Policywise, what Donald Trump is doing is phenomenal,” said Marc Morano, director of communications at the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, who has questioned climate science for years.

“Policywise, what they’re doing is phenomenal and unbelievable and beyond anything we could have hoped,” he said. “It truly is.”

Fighting over the details

There’s no meaningful debate among climate scientists about whether temperatures are rising because of man’s industrial activity.

A host of peer-reviewed studies warn of potentially catastrophic economic and environmental effects, many of which are readily apparent today, without dramatic changes to global greenhouse gas emissions. Most objections to the science have virtually zero credibility in the world’s scientific community.

Still, politically, Ebell doesn’t think it’s useful for conservatives to cede the debate because he said McCarthy’s efforts won’t convince voters who want the federal government to address climate change to vote Republican.

“If local environmental groups or local media in their districts start looking into these bills and start giving them publicity in the local media, they’re going to have a hard time explaining themselves because we’ve conceded that global warming’s a problem, and we’ve got a plan which will do nothing to address it,” Ebell said.

“So I think it’s not a well-thought-out way to proceed on this issue, and I doubt that they’re going to get very much positive spin out of it with voters,” he said.

Prominent conservative organizations, meanwhile, are making similar arguments with more subtle references to the science of climate change.

After McCarthy, Louisiana Rep. Garret Graves and other Republicans came out with their package of bills last month, the Club for Growth promptly blasted it, threatening to withhold endorsements from supporters.

“When you give an inch on principle, you concede a negotiating posture that has also led to devastating bipartisan agreements on bailouts, spending and regulation,” Scott Parkinson, vice president of government affairs for the Club for Growth, wrote in a subsequent letter to the editor in The Washington Post last month.

“Club for Growth will continue to work with principled conservatives who reject climate alarmism and fight for energy and environmental policies based on sound economic principles,” he wrote.

Despite those disagreements, the Republican efforts on climate aren’t actually all that new, and they’re generally more focused on repackaging GOP-backed policies through a climate change lens.

One of the bills they rolled out last month, for instance, would make permanent the 45Q tax break for carbon capture and sequestration, which a Republican-led Congress expanded in 2018.

Graves, the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis’ ranking member, is also leading a letter to National Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow, to be sent in the coming weeks, urging the White House to promote fossil fuel exports as a way to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions.

Top Republicans, including Minority Whip Steve Scalise of Louisiana and conference Chairwoman Liz Cheney of Wyoming, are expected to sign.

The Trump administration, of course, is already gung-ho about exporting fossil fuels, but Republicans argue that it can help the fight against climate change because U.S. exports have lower life-cycle emissions than sources in the developing world.

The current backdrop, however, is that U.S. emissions are increasing, undermining Republicans who point to emissions reductions during the last 15 years. EPA’s most recent numbers found that greenhouse gas emissions rose 3.1% in 2018 — during Trump’s second year in office — despite the continued decline of coal (Climatewire, Feb. 13).

Meanwhile, the party as a whole still roundly rejects carbon pricing and regulations, tools that most climate experts say will be necessary to deploy clean energy technology to the market and reduce emissions fast enough to stave off the worst effects of climate change.

“Looking back over the last several years there have been policies that are entirely consistent with Republican ideology that we can continue doing that achieve multiple goals,” Graves said. “My whole thing is let’s not sit here and fight over the details of the science.”

Constituent services?

Ebell and other skeptics dismiss conservative clean energy groups as empty vessels with money but no loyal supporters, but they’re having an impact.

CRES alone spent nearly $500,000 lobbying on various energy issues in the fourth quarter of 2019, according to disclosure forms, including with several outside lobbying firms.

Much of the lobbying effort went toward getting clean energy priorities into the tax extenders package at the end of last year, according to CRES Executive Director Heather Reams, but CRES and ClearPath were enthusiastic about Republicans adopting their rhetoric in early 2020.

Still, Reams said she doesn’t see her group’s efforts as in direct conflict with those who question climate science. Rather, she believes she offers Republicans who want to talk about climate change a supportive landing pad.

“They’re responding to voters,” Reams said. “So I think it’s a very unfair position that some groups are putting Republican members in. These are complex problems and deserve complex solutions, and keeping your head in the sand is not a solution.”

And in a sign that the climate skeptic wing’s influence could be petering out, the Heartland Institute — a conservative think tank that has long dispersed debunked theories about climate change — laid off some of its staff last week amid reported financial woes (Greenwire, March 9).

Efforts to promote carbon taxes as a conservative solution to climate change have been less successful so far, however, showing the limits of the Republican transformation. Currently, the policy has only a small constituency.

Read the rest of the article here....e&e

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/03062022/gop-climate-plan-fossil-fuels-new-mexico

republican members of Congress chose to hold the first public event for their new climate plan in the country’s No. 1 oil-producing county, in New Mexico, and before an audience of people who work in the oil industry.

This is a climate plan that involves producing much more oil and gas.

It was immediately pilloried by environmental advocates and Democrats as evidence that Republicans want to say they’re doing something about climate change but are not serious about addressing the real problems.

But at this local government conference room in Hobbs, New Mexico, on Thursday afternoon, the people around the table talked about how the country needs to take a realistic approach to reducing emissions while also promoting economic growth. The discussion was likely a test run for the arguments that Republicans will make about energy and climate in the runup to the midterm elections in November.

“I want to be clear on this: I’m fully supportive of moving in the direction of renewable energy,” said U.S. Rep. Garret Graves (R-La.), who leads the Energy, Climate and Conservation Task Force for the House GOP.

...but Graves then quickly added that he also supports an “all-of-the-above energy policy” that includes oil and gas because the world is going to need U.S. energy sources to be able to meet rising energy demand.

“We do it safer and we do it cleaner than anyone else,” he said, about U.S. production of oil and gas. He has been a leading supporter of building additional terminals to allow for the export of liquified natural gas to Europe and other foreign markets, which Russia’s war in Ukraine has made a top industry priority.

So where are the emissions cuts in this Republican climate plan? It’s not clear.

House Republicans have not released details beyond a set of bullet points: “Unlock American resources,” which is the part of the plan covered at Thursday’s rollout; “American innovation,” which encourages an expansion of U.S.-based manufacturing; “Let America build,” which covers a streamlining of permit approval for construction of energy projects; “Beat China and Russia,” which covers the idea of U.S. energy exports as a counterweight to geopolitical rivals; “Conservation with a purpose,” which covers tree-planting and making changes to farming practices; and “Build resilient communities,” which covers adaptation to the effects of climate change.

ClearPath Action, a Republican-allied lobbying group, has a website supporting the plan and also hinting at some of the details yet to come.

Some of the climate benefits are indirect but still important, according to ClearPath. For example, encouraging manufacturers to operate in the United States is good for the climate because the country has higher standards for clean air and water than many other countries that tend to attract heavy industry.

The larger significance of the plan is that House Republicans feel like they need to have a climate plan, which reflects the rising importance of the topic across the political spectrum, said Corey Schrodt, legislative affairs manager for climate issues for the Niskanen Center, a Washington, D.C., think tank that describes itself as politically moderate.

“I think that the issue at this point is Republicans are still figuring out what policy prescriptions are going to be palatable, are going to work for them,” said Schrodt, who previously was chief of staff for U.S. Rep. Francis Rooney (R-Fla.), a leader in his party in urging action to address climate change who did not run for re-election in 2020.

“But I think that you’ve seen a very significant shift in the last three to five years, from just the phrase ‘climate change,’ turning off the conversation, and ending all consideration, to where you can actually have those conversations,” he said, about talks among Republicans. “So it’s so striking how different that environment is.”

But even if it’s OK to say “climate change,” Republicans have resisted the idea of a rapid retreat from fossil fuels, which puts the party at odds with the scientific consensus, outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and many others, about what’s needed.

Environmental Groups Respond

From almost the moment that news outlets reported the existence of the House GOP climate plan this week, Democrats and environmental groups attacked the effort as a cynical ploy that is close to the opposite of climate action.

“This would be laughable as a climate agenda in 2022 except there is absolutely nothing funny about the climate crisis or Congressional Republicans’ obstruction of desperately needed solutions in the name of lining the pockets of their corporate allies and big oil polluters who fund their campaigns,” said Tiernan Sittenfeld, senior vice president of government affairs for the League of Conservation Voters, in a statement.

Melinda Pierce, the Sierra Club’s legislative director, issued a statement saying the plan is an attempt to “greenhouse gaslight the American public.”

“The overwhelming majority of Americans have been demanding action on the climate crisis for years, while Republicans mocked or ignored their pleas,” she said. “Attaching ‘climate’ to today’s efforts does not change that.”

Mitch Jones, managing director of policy for Food & Water Action, said Republicans are unable to move away from seeing fossil fuels as the solution rather than the problem.

“What’s needed now are serious plans that meet the monumental scale of the crisis, and also deliver the economic benefits and job opportunities that are so desperately needed,” he said in a statement. “We need to elect climate champions this year who will prioritize shifting off of dirty fossil fuels that poison communities and enrich corporate polluters.”

Despite the heated responses, the plan contains several elements that are popular in both parties, like encouraging U.S. manufacturing and streamlining the permit process for energy projects.

“There are probably a suite of policies Democrats and Republicans could support on climate if they could see their way to work together,” said Joshua Busby, a University of Texas at Austin public policy professor.

He lamented that the parties seem unable to agree on legislation, even on policies they both support.

Reading the Room

At the New Mexico event, about 20 people gathered in a conference room of the county economic development office, with GOP members of Congress at the head of the table, including Rep. Yvette Herrell (R-N.M.), whose district includes this oil-producing region.

“The messaging or the storytelling has got to happen,” she said, about the need for Republicans and the oil and gas industry to do a better job of communicating the benefits of fossil fuels. (The meeting was broadcast live on Herrell’s Facebook page.)

The audience, including state and local officials and people who work in the oil and gas industry, was receptive to the message. Justin Bliffen, CEO of Brigade Energy Services, a company that operates oil and gas drilling rigs, said, “This is a little bit of an echo chamber here.”

“Don’t just end the vilification of this industry, but let’s flip it on its head and let’s promote, respect and appreciate the awesomeness and the goodness of this industry,” Bliffen said.

Hobbs is in Lea County, New Mexico, which borders Texas and is located over the Permian Basin, one of the richest deposits of oil and gas in the world.

3/19

https://www.eenews.net/articles/committee-roster-exposes-republican-fault-lines/

One has a deep background in climate and coastal adaptation. One is a good friend of the Koch political network. Two come from coal country.

The Republican roster for the climate change select committee reflects the party’s larger variety of stances on climate change, although its most outspoken advocates for aggressive action on emissions were left off.

In short, the GOP is all over the place. the roster of Republicans for the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, announced yesterday by Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), will be led by Rep. Garret Graves.

The Louisiana lawmaker served on his state’s Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority, where he helped craft a massive coastal restoration and levee program after Hurricane Katrina. And he was once a staff director for the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Subcommittee on Global Climate Change and Impacts under then-Sen. David Vitter (R-La.).

Graves is in some ways the quintessential Republican on climate. He’s concerned about the effects of sea-level rise on his district, but he’s not hesitant to tout the benefits of natural gas in reducing emissions or the "all of the above" energy agenda.

"I’ve been working in this area for a while, and Louisiana’s in a unique spot just because we have both sea rise facing us and we’re one of the top energy producers," he told E&E News last month. "I think it’s a unique perspective."

Graves could use his spot on the panel to push climate adaptation measures for sea-level rise, which he said is "the threat that’s closest to the door." He’s already worked on water infrastructure issues on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and was heavily involved in the Disaster Recovery Reform Act, a major set of disaster reforms enacted last year.

But other Republicans on the select committee have openly disputed climate science or have deeper ties to the fossil fuel industry and conservative donors who have long opposed action on climate change.

They’ll sit across from a group of Democrats, led by Chairwoman Kathy Castor of Florida, who will be tasked with driving home and publicizing the party’s message on climate change (:{Greenwire:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:, Feb. 7).

Low scores, big dollars

The Republican roster is primarily defined by low ratings from environmental groups and big campaign donations from the fossil fuel industry.

It also represents a mix of energy interests and could help rally around the Republican claim that natural gas and nuclear are the path forward on climate.

Reps. Morgan Griffith of Virginia, [ koch astro took out durbin boss rep] Buddy Carter of Georgia, Gary Palmer of Alabama, Carol Miller of West Virginia and Kelly Armstrong of North Dakota round out the GOP roster.

While all the GOP picks are conservative, Griffith and Palmer are members of the House Freedom Caucus, the hard-right group filled with climate deniers and deep doubts about the regulatory role of EPA.

The conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute, a fierce EPA critic, recommended six members for the panel, but only Griffith made the cut. The Virginia lawmaker said he has not talked with the group about the opening.

An Energy and Commerce Committee member, Griffith has often fought EPA rules that target coal, a large economic driver in his district located in the southwestern part of the state. He has sought funding for the redevelopment of abandoned mines.

"As long as we make it clear they have to follow rules and realistic science, I am fine with it," Griffith said when asked about EPA’s role in regulating greenhouse gases.

Griffith does not deny climate change but has raised concerns that other countries are doing less than the U.S. to cut global emissions, a common Republican line echoed across the Energy and Commerce panel. He’s an ally of the Koch political network,which helped him oust Democrat Rick Boucher, one of the lead authors of the 2009 cap-and-trade bill.

Asked about allies on the panel, Griffith said he gets "along well" with Palmer and knows Democratic Rep. Don McEachin of Virginia from their days in the state Legislature.

Since his election to Congress in 2010, Griffith has taken more than $700,000 from the fossil fuel industry and electric utilities, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. He has a 5 percent lifetime score from the League of Conservation Voters.

Palmer, who sits on the Science and Transportation and Infrastructure committees, has gone further than many Republicans in questioning not only the cause, but whether climate change is even underway. He has questioned the accuracy of global warming studies and was forced to correct himself in 2017 when he said Arctic ice sheets were expanding rather than, in fact, shrinking.

Palmer has consistently argued that Congress never gave EPA the right to regulate greenhouse gases and believes the courts are wrong in backing that right. Still, he told E&E last year it’s "political nonsense" to say the GOP wants to eliminate all regulations, saying it only wants "sensible" ones.

Elected in 2014, Palmer has received $139,000 from energy and natural gas interests, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. He has a 1 percent lifetime LCV score.

Carter has a similarly abysmal record in LCV’s estimation, coming in with a zero percent lifetime score, but he doesn’t take as hard a stance on climate science.

"I acknowledge that climate change is a problem," Carter said during his campaign last year, according to the Savannah Morning News. "I question sometimes how much of it is man-made but I acknowledge that we need to address it and I’ve always done that."

His district runs the span of Georgia’s coast and is near Plant Vogtle, currently the nation’s sole nuclear power project.

The two freshmen selected for the panel hail from rural states heavily reliant on the fossil fuel industry.

Armstrong, an attorney who worked for his family oil business and owns a few hundred wells himself in North Dakota, is the sole congressman from a state with huge gas and oil holdings in the Bakken Shale.

He has argued against the United States going it alone on climate policy and prefers that states, not EPA, regulate the environment (*E&E Daily*, Jan. 11).

Armstrong was elected to replace Kevin Cramer (R), who is now in the Senate, and his largest source of campaign donations was the oil and gas industries, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Miller, who won an open-seat race, is certain to tout White House policies that promote and protect domestic coal, one of West Virginia’s leading exports. A bison farmer who owns a car dealership, she also has expressed doubts over federal spending on the expanding use of renewable fuels. In a year that saw a large number of women elected to Congress, Miller was the only new female GOP member.

‘I’ll take that two ways’

While conservative and moderate climate activists praised Graves, there were also some notable omissions from the panel.

Not a single member who was on the Climate Solutions Caucus last Congress made it onto the roster, nor did Reps. Francis Rooney (R-Fla.) and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), the two most outspoken House Republicans on climate issues.

But Rooney suggested it might be a good thing he wasn’t selected if the committee ends up being a forum for partisan bickering about established science.Rooney had even asked McCarthy to be on the panel, as had Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), the former ranking member of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming from 2007 to 2011.

"I’ll take that two ways," Rooney told reporters yesterday. "First of all, it shows that they’re not where I am yet, and it makes me feel really good about being where I am."

Still, it’s "a bit puzzling" that none of the Republicans from the Solutions Caucus made it onto the panel, said Steve Valk, spokesman for Citizens’ Climate Lobby.

"Graves appears to be a good pick for ranking member," Valk said in an email. "His district faces many challenges with climate change, and he’s expressed the need for action."

Alex Flint, executive director of the Alliance for Market Solutions, a conservative carbon tax group, similarly praised the selection of Graves.

"That is a clear signal that the Republican leadership is comfortable with someone who acknowledges climate change leading Republicans on this issue," Flint said in an email.

But even Graves has just a 3 percent lifetime rating from the League of Conservation Voters and took more than $130,000 from oil and gas political action committees in the last election cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

‘We’re speaking for ourselves now’

The mix of Republican ideologies — and the tension between deniers and nominal believers — is also evident elsewhere on Capitol Hill.

On Wednesday, the Congressional Western Caucus gathered reporters outside the Capitol to rail against climate science and the "Green New Deal." House Natural Resources ranking member Rob Bishop (R-Utah) ate a hamburger, saying that the "Green New Deal" would ban cows, and Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) falsely suggested that carbon dioxide is not bad for the planet because plants use it for photosynthesis (*E&E Daily*, Feb. 28).

Then, the next morning at the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change, the Republican climate evolution some activists have been claiming to see for years was on full display.

Members including Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) and full committee ranking member Greg Walden (R-Ore.) continued to rebut the legality of the Paris climate agreement, but they also called for bipartisan climate action that stresses "innovation," pleas that would have been stunning just a few years ago.

"We’re speaking for ourselves now," as opposed to letting Democrats control the message on climate, Walden told reporters.

"There’s a lot of stuff we can work together on," he added.

What that atmosphere means for climate legislation and for debates on the select committee is still not clear, but Rooney said he’s hoping to turn freshly converted Republicans into carbon tax believers.

Some Republicans might even jump on board with carbon pricing to counter the progressive "Green New Deal," which would rely heavily on government spending on infrastructure, research and development, Rooney said.

"I think the ‘Green New Deal’ may have gotten people’s attention," Rooney said. "It certainly got Walden’s."

Asked about carbon pricing yesterday as he ducked back into the House chamber, Walden didn’t rule it out.

"I’m not going to get into all those discussions yet," he said.

Letters: Garret Graves probably needs more time with Greta Thunberg

Michael Beck OCT 17, 2019

[Picking the rush hour traffic eastbound and westbound on Interstate 10, activists put banners over the highway on the Nairn Drive overpass protesting climate change Friday Sept. 20, 2019, in Baton Rouge, La.]

James Gill’s column (“How Thunberg could reduce her carbon footprint”) was fine entertainment but tended to grate in places. We read: “It is idiotic to drive your car, air-condition your house and use any of a billion plastic products while demonizing the companies that made it all possible.”

LOGA: Energy industry needs a level playing field in Louisiana]

Unless, of course, those same companies made it all not just possible, but unavoidable, by controlling a century of public policy. The record runs long, so let’s scratch the surface with some fresh instances. The New York Times (Dec. 13, 2018) exposed massive, covert lobbying and Facebook campaigns by Marathon, Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Phillips 66, Koch Industries (Valero) and others to reverse EPA motor fuel economy standards. Just the title of another Times piece (June 19, 2018) says plenty: “How the Koch Brothers are Killing Public Transportation Projects around the Country.” It is not idiotic, but oddly culpatory to blame consumers for choices someone works so hard to deny them.

Gill describes U.S. Rep. Garret Graves as “not belonging to the Neanderthal wing of the GOP that denies mankind is warming the planet.” Yes, Graves has spoken some faintly science-compatible words lately. Memes from the coal lobby, like “climate is always changing” no longer seem to dominate his outlook. If his views get any more enlightened, they’ll catch up with official oil industry pronouncements from 10 years ago. (BP publicly acknowledged climate science back in the 1990s.)

Letters: Louisiana should address the root cause of global warming]

Give credit where it’s due: As reported in the Sunday Advocate (July 21) Graves voted against a Republican amendment to strip funding from the National Intelligence Budget for a Climate Security Advisory Council (HR3494). This is the Garret we want to encourage; if he means to change his spots, we should make it easy for him. But we’ll want a little more in the way of deeds, the kind of deeds that have not characterized his record hitherto. Curious readers may examine this record. The League of Conservation Voters (see lcv.org) lists his climate (and other environmental) votes since 2015. There is quite a lot in there for him to reconsider. A few more interviews with Greta Thunberg might help to school him down a greener path.

Michael Beck

chemist

Baton Rouge

https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060122773/print

One has a deep background in climate and coastal adaptation. One is a good friend of the Koch political network. Two come from coal country.

The Republican roster for the climate change select committeereflects the party's larger variety of stances on climate change, although its most outspoken advocates for aggressive action on emissions were left off.

In short, the GOP is all over the place.

The roster of Republicans for the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, announced yesterday by Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), will be led by Rep. Garret Graves.

The Louisiana lawmaker served on his state's Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority, where he helped craft a massive coastal restoration and levee program after Hurricane Katrina.And he was once a staff director for the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Subcommittee on Global Climate Change and Impacts under then-Sen. David Vitter(R-La.).

Graves is in some ways the quintessential Republican on climate. He's concerned about the effects of sea-level rise on his district, but he's not hesitant to tout the benefits of natural gas in reducing emissions or the "all of the above" energy agenda.

"I've been working in this area for a while, and Louisiana's in a unique spot just because we have both sea rise facing us and we're one of the top energy producers," he told E&E News last month. "I think it's a unique perspective."

Graves could use his spot on the panel to push climate adaptation measures for sea-level rise, which he said is "the threat that's closest to the door." He's already worked on water infrastructure issues on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and was heavily involved in the Disaster Recovery Reform Act, a major set of disaster reforms enacted last year.

They'll sit across from a group of Democrats, led by Chairwoman Kathy Castor of Florida, who will be tasked with driving home and publicizing the party's message on climate change (*Greenwire*, Feb. 7).

Low scores, big dollars

The Republican roster is primarily defined by low ratings from environmental groups and big campaign donations from the fossil fuel industry.

It also represents a mix of energy interests and could help rally around the Republican claim that natural gas and nuclear are the path forward on climate.

Reps. Morgan Griffith of Virginia, Buddy Carter of Georgia, Gary Palmer of Alabama, Carol Miller of West Virginia and Kelly Armstrong of North Dakota round out the GOP roster.

The conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute, a fierce EPA critic, recommended six members for the panel, but only Griffith made the cut. The Virginia lawmaker said he has not talked with the group about the opening.

An Energy and Commerce Committee member, Griffith has often fought EPA rules that target coal, a large economic driver in his district located in the southwestern part of the state. He has sought funding for the redevelopment of abandoned mines.

"As long as we make it clear they have to follow rules and realistic science, I am fine with it," Griffith said when asked about EPA's role in regulating greenhouse gases.

Griffith does not deny climate change but has raised concerns that other countries are doing less than the U.S. to cut global emissions, a common Republican line echoed across the Energy and Commerce panel. He's an ally of the Koch political network, which helped him oust Democrat Rick Boucher, one of the lead authors of the 2009 cap-and-trade bill.

Asked about allies on the panel, Griffith said he gets "along well" with Palmer and knows Democratic Rep. Don McEachin of Virginia from their days in the state Legislature.

Since his election to Congress in 2010, Griffith has taken more than $700,000 from the fossil fuel industry and electric utilities, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. He has a 5 percent lifetime score from the League of Conservation Voters.

Palmer, who sits on the Science and Transportation and Infrastructure committees, has gone further than many Republicans in questioning not only the cause, but whether climate change is even underway.He has questioned the accuracy of global warming studies and was forced to correct himself in 2017 when he said Arctic ice sheets were expanding rather than, in fact, shrinking.

Palmer has consistently argued that Congress never gave EPA the right to regulate greenhouse gases and believes the courts are wrong in backing that right. Still, he told E&E last year it's "political nonsense" to say the GOP wants to eliminate all regulations, saying it only wants "sensible" ones.

Elected in 2014, Palmer has received $139,000 from energy and natural gas interests, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. He has a 1 percent lifetime LCV score.

Carter has a similarly abysmal record in LCV's estimation, coming in with a zero percent lifetime score, but he doesn't take as hard a stance on climate science.

"I acknowledge that climate change is a problem," Carter said during his campaign last year, according to the Savannah Morning News. "I question sometimes how much of it is man-made but I acknowledge that we need to address it and I've always done that."

His district runs the span of Georgia's coast and is near Plant Vogtle, currently the nation's sole nuclear power project.

The two freshmen selected for the panel hail from rural states heavily reliant on the fossil fuel industry.

He has argued against the United States going it alone on climate policy and prefers that states, not EPA, regulate the environment (*E&E Daily*, Jan. 11).

Miller, who won an open-seat race, is certain to tout White House policies that promote and protect domestic coal, one of West Virginia's leading exports. A bison farmer who owns a car dealership, she also has expressed doubts over federal spending on the expanding use of renewable fuels. In a year that saw a large number of women elected to Congress, Miller was the only new female GOP member.

'I'll take that two ways'

While conservative and moderate climate activists praised Graves, there were also some notable omissions from the panel.

But Rooney suggested it might be a good thing he wasn't selected if the committee ends up being a forum for partisan bickering about established science.Rooney had even asked McCarthy to be on the panel, as had Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), the former ranking member of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming from 2007 to 2011.

"I'll take that two ways," Rooney told reporters yesterday. "First of all, it shows that they're not where I am yet, and it makes me feel really good about being where I am."

Still, it's "a bit puzzling" that none of the Republicans from the Solutions Caucus made it onto the panel, said Steve Valk, spokesman for Citizens' Climate Lobby.

"Graves appears to be a good pick for ranking member," Valk said in an email. "His district faces many challenges with climate change, and he's expressed the need for action."

Alex Flint, executive director of the Alliance for Market Solutions, a conservative carbon tax group, similarly praised the selection of Graves.

"That is a clear signal that the Republican leadership is comfortable with someone who acknowledges climate change leading Republicans on this issue," Flint said in an email.

But even Graves has just a 3 percent lifetime rating from the League of Conservation Votersand took more than $130,000 from oil and gas political action committees in the last election cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

'We're speaking for ourselves now'

The mix of Republican ideologies — and the tension between deniers and nominal believers — is also evident elsewhere on Capitol Hill.

On Wednesday, theCongressional Western Caucus gathered reporters outside the Capitol to rail against climate science and the "Green New Deal." House Natural Resources ranking member Rob Bishop (R-Utah) ate a hamburger, saying that the "Green New Deal" would ban cows, and Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) falsely suggested that carbon dioxide is not bad for the planet because plants use it for photosynthesis (*E&E Daily*, Feb. 28).

Members including Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) and full committee ranking member Greg Walden (R-Ore.) continued to rebut the legality of the Paris climate agreement, but they also called for bipartisan climate action that stresses "innovation," pleas that would have been stunning just a few years ago.

"We're speaking for ourselves now," as opposed to letting Democrats control the message on climate, Walden told reporters.

"There's a lot of stuff we can work together on," he added.

What that atmosphere means for climate legislation and for debates on the select committee is still not clear, but Rooney said he's hoping to turn freshly converted Republicans into carbon tax believers.

"I think the 'Green New Deal' may have gotten people's attention," Rooney said. "It certainly got Walden's."

Asked about carbon pricing yesterday as he ducked back into the House chamber, Walden didn't rule it out.

"I'm not going to get into all those discussions yet," he said.

Garret Graves, now Jindal's coastal management adviser, has worked as an adviser to Sen. David Vitter, R-La., former Sen. John Breaux, D-La., and former U.S. Rep. Billy Tauzin, R-Chackbay.

https://thinkprogress.org/republicans-house-climate-change-committee-action-green-new-deal-graves-mcconnell-3e29225decee/

six Republicans named to a House select committee meant to address the mounting threat of climate change range in ideology and reflect the larger Republican Party’s shifting approach to discussing and addressing global warming.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA)announced Thursday thatRepublican Reps. Garret Graves (LA), Gary Palmer (AL), Kelly Armstrong (ND), Carol Miller (WV), Morgan Griffith (VA), and Buddy Carter (GA) will all serve on the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis.

The lawmakers more broadly reflect a deeply conservative approach to climate change. Many are from states dependent on fossil fuels and are likely to complicate the committee’s work, which has already been curtailed by House leadership. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) formed the committee in January but declined to give the group legislative authority or subpoena power — limiting their ability to actually effect change.

But the selection also offers some surprises. Graves, who will lead the Republican coalition, accepts the science behind climate change and has cited the issue as a place where he breaks with many members of his party. While Graves has only a 3 percent lifetime rating from the League of Conservation Voters (LCV), meaning his environmental voting record is relatively weak, he has proven more willing to engage on climate action than many other Republicans.

His state, Louisiana, is an oil and gas hub. But it is also deeply vulnerable to the impacts of climate change....https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2548/nasa-studies-a-rarity-growing-louisiana-deltas/...losing around a football field’s worth of land an hour as sea level rise lashes the coast. Devastating hurricanes like Katrina in 2005 have also scarred the state, which will be among those hit first and worst amid the heightening toll of global warming.

Graves’ mainstream climate views are in line with the threat to his constituents and the lawmaker has proven open to measured action. When Graves chaired the Transportation Committee’s Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, he supported programs emphasizing climate adaption and mitigation. He also formerly managed the Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority, created in the aftermath of Katrina to assist with coastal restoration and hurricane protection.

That past track record, however, doesn’t fully counter Graves’ conservative credentials. A study in contradictions, the Louisiana Republican has seen support from organizations like Environmental Defense Fund, while also receiving the backing of the ultra-conservative Republican mega-donor Koch brothers.

And according to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics, Graves also received $210,150 from oil and gas donors in 2018 alone.

https://thinkprogress.org/number-of-climate-deniers-decline-congress-8a0e657a12af/

https://thinkprogress.org/number-of-climate-deniers-decline-congress-8a0e657a12af/https://thinkprogress.org/number-of-climate-deniers-decline-congress-8a0e657a12af/https://thinkprogress.org/number-of-climate-deniers-decline-congress-8a0e657a12af/https://thinkprogress.org/number-of-climate-deniers-decline-congress-8a0e657a12af/https://thinkprogress.org/number-of-climate-deniers-decline-congress-8a0e657a12af/https://thinkprogress.org/number-of-climate-deniers-decline-congress-8a0e657a12af/https://thinkprogress.org/number-of-climate-deniers-decline-congress-8a0e657a12af/https://thinkprogress.org/number-of-climate-deniers-decline-congress-8a0e657a12af/https://thinkprogress.org/number-of-climate-deniers-decline-congress-8a0e657a12af/https://thinkprogress.org/number-of-climate-deniers-decline-congress-8a0e657a12af/https://thinkprogress.org/number-of-climate-deniers-decline-congress-8a0e657a12af/https://thinkprogress.org/number-of-climate-deniers-decline-congress-8a0e657a12af/https://thinkprogress.org/number-of-climate-deniers-decline-congress-8a0e657a12af/https://thinkprogress.org/number-of-climate-deniers-decline-congress-8a0e657a12af/https://thinkprogress.org/number-of-climate-deniers-decline-congress-8a0e657a12af/https://thinkprogress.org/number-of-climate-deniers-decline-congress-8a0e657a12af/https://thinkprogress.org/number-of-climate-deniers-decline-congress-8a0e657a12af/https://thinkprogress.org/number-of-climate-deniers-decline-congress-8a0e657a12af/https://thinkprogress.org/number-of-climate-deniers-decline-congress-8a0e657a12af/https://thinkprogress.org/number-of-climate-deniers-decline-congress-8a0e657a12af/https://thinkprogress.org/number-of-climate-deniers-decline-congress-8a0e657a12af/https://thinkprogress.org/number-of-climate-deniers-decline-congress-8a0e657a12af/https://thinkprogress.org/number-of-climate-deniers-decline-congress-8a0e657a12af/https://thinkprogress.org/number-of-climate-deniers-decline-congress-8a0e657a12af/https://thinkprogress.org/number-of-climate-deniers-decline-congress-8a0e657a12af/https://thinkprogress.org/number-of-climate-deniers-decline-congress-8a0e657a12af/https://thinkprogress.org/number-of-climate-deniers-decline-congress-8a0e657a12af/https://thinkprogress.org/number-of-climate-deniers-decline-congress-8a0e657a12af/https://thinkprogress.org/number-of-climate-deniers-decline-congress-8a0e657a12af/https://thinkprogress.org/number-of-climate-deniers-decline-congress-8a0e657a12af/https://thinkprogress.org/number-of-climate-deniers-decline-congress-8a0e657a12af/https://thinkprogress.org/number-of-climate-deniers-decline-congress-8a0e657a12af/https://thinkprogress.org/number-of-climate-deniers-decline-congress-8a0e657a12af/https://thinkprogress.org/number-of-climate-deniers-decline-congress-8a0e657a12af/https://thinkprogress.org/number-of-climate-deniers-decline-congress-8a0e657a12af/https://thinkprogress.org/number-of-climate-deniers-decline-congress-8a0e657a12af/https://thinkprogress.org/number-of-climate-deniers-decline-congress-8a0e657a12af/https://thinkprogress.org/number-of-climate-deniers-decline-congress-8a0e657a12af/https://thinkprogress.org/number-of-climate-deniers-decline-congress-8a0e657a12af/https://thinkprogress.org/number-of-climate-deniers-decline-congress-8a0e657a12af/

As ‘Green New Deal’ talk gains traction, lawmakers who deny climate change are on the decline

Some of Graves’ peers on the climate change committee also have strong support from fossil fuel interests. Armstrong, of drilling hub North Dakota, received $217,751 from the oil and gas industry in 2018.

By contrast, the nine Democratic members of the committee took a combined $198,000.

And apart from Graves, all Republican members of the committee have expressed a degree of skepticism about climate change, including Alabama’s Palmer who has twice sought to keep the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating greenhouse gases.

“The EPA has repeatedly claimed fighting climate change as justification for crafting onerous regulations that limit carbon dioxide, water vapor, and other compounds that are both essentially harmless and in fact required for life to flourish,” the congressman claimed in 2015.

Emerging trends, however, would suggest that it is Graves and not Palmer who offers an indicator of where the Republican Party may be moving on climate change. Recent polling shows that the majority of Americans believe in climate change and are concerned about its impacts. That has been compounded new scientific assessments, like the 2018 National Climate Assessment (NCA) and a dire U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report released last fall. Both reports warned that climate impacts are playing out now with dwindling time to avert heightened catastrophe.

Lawmakers who express skepticism or outright deny climate change, meanwhile, are on the decline. That trend comes as some Democrats embrace radical climate action. Three weeks ago, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) introduced the Green New Deal resolution,a blueprint for rapidly decarbonizing the U.S. economy in roughly a decade. Reactions to the proposal have varied dramatically even among Democrats — almost 90 House lawmakers and all Democratic 2020 presidential contenders in the Senate have signed on to the resolution, but many remain skeptical.

Republicans, meanwhile, have attacked the resolution as “socialism” and argued it would decimate sectors of the U.S. economy, including agriculture. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) recently pledged to hold a vote on the Green New Deal resolution, in an effort to fracture unity among Senate Democrats. But that effort hit a stumbling block as Democrats rallied behind a unity resolution acknowledging climate change and calling for congressional action to address the issue.

Other Republicans, meanwhile, are moving away from McConnell, including Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), who broke ranks this week to oppose the appointment of EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler over his rollbacks of environmental regulations.

Others, like Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC), have acknowledged climate change as its impacts take an increasing toll on their states.More moderate Republicans are also increasingly embracing limited climate action responses like carbon pricing.

This shift toward a potentially more moderate take on climate change is reflected in the choice of Graves, but other omissions show Republicans are far from unified on even incremental climate action. Rep. Francis Rooney (R-FL), arguably the Republican most committed to addressing climate change in the House, failed to make the cut for the climate committee.

And while he called Graves a “pretty reasonable guy,” Rooney told reporters on Thursday that his own exclusion from the committee speaks to a divide between his climate politics and Republican leadership.

“It shows they are not quite where I am yet,” said Rooney, “and it makes me feel really good about being where I am.”