Low-Income Advocates Support Whitehouse on Climate Change

The OCPP says that without adequate protections such as those proposed by the Whitehouse amendment, carbon emissions controls could increase the hardship faced by low-income families,

(SILVERTON, Ore.) - Legislation proposed by Rhode Island U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse capping carbon emissions can protect low-income Oregonians while fighting global warming, advocates told Oregon's U.S. Senators Gordon Smith and Ron Wyden Thursday in a letter presented prior to a vote on the issue.

The letter from the Oregon Center for Public Policy urged the Oregon senators to support the Whitehouse amendment to the Climate Security Act of 2008. Also known as Lieberman-Warner, the Climate Security Act would cap carbon emissions.

"The Whitehouse amendment offers more efficient and effective protection for low-income families, while moving forward the fight against global warming," wrote Charles Sheketoff, executive director of the Silverton-based think tank.

Absent adequate protections such as those proposed by the Whitehouse amendment, carbon emissions controls could increase the hardship faced by low-income families, said Sheketoff. He noted that these families typically lack the means to invest in energy conservation measures and energy efficient and cleaner technologies and that higher gasoline, food and other costs that will rise under a carbon cap take a bigger bite out of their incomes, compared to higher-income consumers.

Although the current version of Lieberman-Warner provides some protection for low-income families, it does not go far enough and does not target or distribute the aid as effectively as the Whitehouse amendment, said Sheketoff.

"Contrary to the claims of some opponents of capping carbon emissions, the Climate Security Act does not necessarily have to hurt low-income families," he said. "An effectively designed measure, such as that proposed by Senator Whitehouse, can fully protect low-income families from additional hardship."

The Oregon Center for Public Policy is a non-partisan research institute that does in-depth research and analysis on budget, tax, and economic issues. The Center's goal is to improve decision making and generate more opportunities for all Oregonians.

Salem-News.com Top Stories

2025: Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst

Two Wars with No Way Out

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

Albert Marnell June 12, 2008 2:25 am (Pacific time)

The earth is 93 million miles from the sun and its diameter of 7,900 miles is less than one hundredth that of the sun's. If the sun were imagined as a six-inch ball, Earth wouldn be 55 feet away from it. Mars is 142 million miles from the sun and Jupiter is 483 million miles from the sun. The sun is getting hotter for unknown reasons and the ice caps of Mars are retreating and Jupiter is having storms of unknown origin. What do SUV's in California have to do with the climate of the earth....NOTHING! Al Gore is full of hot air. The Global Carbon Tax is part of the effort to fund one world government through taxation. What do you think the European Union is about or the North American Union? Eventually the orgasm of the Global Bankers that control all of the money in the world is to have one currency, one government all ruled by the global elite with the global bankers on the throne. How naive people are. Talk about something long enough and the mainstream gets on the bandwagon and gives the topic life. Bilderberg, Bilderberg, Bilderberg. C.F.R., C.F.R., C.F.R. all are nothing but euphemisms. Since people are so gullible, maybe I should use euphemisms every day to get what I want for myself.

Henry Ruark June 11, 2008 11:13 am (Pacific time)

JB, Wally et al: SO now you have skewered on the open public record precisely where GOP/neocons stand on oil profits and further incursions for drilling well recognized as depleting Earth resources. SO long as pipeline flows so lavishly with oil profits packaged neatly,if not nicely, as "corporate campaign contributions", expect same action on any/all energy law.

Henry Ruark June 8, 2008 1:56 pm (Pacific time)

JB et al: But consensus does indicate high degree of probabilities when it includes best, most, fully informed, dedicated, trained persons, pledged to find truth as physically proven; and with reports subject to fully-probing professional field review, literally with pro/reputation hanging by thread of proofs. That's what we have here, persuasive in depth, detail, continuing study --and latest re polar bear ("endangered species" due in part to warming trend") and contraction of usual-location for ice-flow extension (personal report by McCain after visit North.) OR are you saying you debate points he stated ? YOU don't trust HIM ? Re who profits from any "scam" and particularly from continuation of current status quo re energy-suppply, esp. source-openings now cut off to preserve and protect Earth, most probable pretenders are those now profiting hugely, as in oil-cost elevation. Dissent is and should be sacred, in both politics and science, but never overlook commonsense, particularly when supported in depth by probabilities --that's why some polls are reliable and others trip over own feet --or fixed-ideation of proponents. Still-further solid/proof, naturally, is the OCPP report itself: When reliable service agencies take informative stance, it often pays to learn from them by careful listening on what they, too, stake their reputation on, for all to see, and check-back later. On my records, they scoring in high 99.9 level on anything they have ever put into print. Do you wish also to attack their record ? OR any other now-understood "fact" ? If so, please furnish specific link to published-source solid statement, for our "see with own eyes" and learn, THEN evaluate, approach here. If any-so-far, have missed 'em; so ID self to Editor Tim and we can continue, with all due regard for others here.

Wally June 8, 2008 10:20 am (Pacific time)

Since we ae discussing climate and energy consumption, we are still facing a worsening situation as the price of energy is impacting every part of our economy, and still congress (both parties) are pointing fingers at whose fault it is. My beef is that our elected officals are not acting in our best interests. RISING in the Senate on May 13, Chuck Schumer, the New York senator, explained: "I rise to discuss rising energy prices." The president was heading to Saudi Arabia to seek an increase in its oil production, and Schumer's gorge was rising. Saudi Arabia, he said, "holds the key to reducing gasoline prices at home in the short term." Therefore arms sales to that kingdom should be blocked unless it "increases its oil production by one million barrels per day," which would cause the price of gasoline to fall "50 cents a gallon almost immediately." Can a senator, with so many things on his mind, know so precisely how the price of gasoline would respond to that increase in the oil supply? Schumer does know that if you increase the supply of something, the price of it probably will fall. One million barrels is what might today be flowing from ANWR if in 1995 President Bill Clinton hadn't vetoed legislation to permit drilling there. Drilling is under way 60 miles off Florida. The drilling is being done by China, in cooperation with Cuba, which is drilling closer to South Florida than US companies are. What is congress up to, and why? Who is roadblocking new energy production?

JB June 8, 2008 8:51 am (Pacific time)

Consensus does not make for scientific fact. Look at the climate record over recorded time. Everyday more scientists are refuting claims by the global warming alarmists (as are [empirical] climatic conditions). When you hear people say all debate is over and those who challenge this media driven warming scenario are some kind of nuts, then what are they afraid of? This, just like ethanol, is a scam people. Ice pack is increasing in different areas, polar bears are increasing in population. I could go on, but why don't you just google global warming skeptics (or something similar) and follow the different links to give you other "scientific" rationales. Why do these alarmists not want you do hear different scientific explanations? When you do the research you will get your answer to that question...in spades!

Henry Ruark June 8, 2008 8:40 am (Pacific time)

To all: "See with own eyes" from current Edit in publication not known for radical view: "Anyone who doubts the existence of climate change is a scientific fool. The data are clear: The overall climate is warming, with dramatic effects on flora and fauna. Some scientists predict that temperatures will become too warm for the Willamette Valley's pinot noir grapes, as well as some other crops, and for many species of salmon, steelhead and trout. "That is not good news for Oregonians' quality of life, both environmentally and economically. "The unresolved questions, however, are these: How much of this worldwide climate change is a natural trend, and how much is caused by humankind? How much of the climate change is at least controllable, if not reversible? What are the most effective approaches, and what are the proper roles of the public, private and non-profit sectors? "The best approach, obviously, would be worldwide agreement. Without such collaboration, there's legitimate concern that pollutant-heavy U.S. industries will shift their operations to less-restrictive countries. Meanwhile, economic survival, with or without creating greenhouse-gas emissions, is the daily priority of many people in developing nations." ----------- (S/J, Sunday 6/8/08) ----------- The Climate Security Act is NOT "the perfect bill". BUT we need action-now, and can seek full perfection later as demonstrated so often, on so much, for so long, especially where broad, intense international cooperation is absolute requisite. Note WHO blocked this one, and you can figure out WHY very easily. Status-quo for "establishment" shaped the opposition, for sure. IF we wait long enough, we can surely "save money" --but lose all else, too... Probabilities surely, unavoidably, indicate actio now is by far the best course.

Albert Marnell June 8, 2008 8:05 am (Pacific time)

Cloak a tax with environmentalism, get the scientific dictatorship and others into the fold and the more educated fall for this scam; hook, line and sinker.

Henry Ruark June 7, 2008 8:05 pm (Pacific time)

To all: Responsible coverage from reliable sources, and action worlwide by top scientific organizations and international agencies, as well as the very high majority of major scientists best qualified, all form consensus defining and describing the realities we face in an Earth environment now well-plundered and moving irrevocably towards extreme difficulties. That is honest, documented report on this problem; for data, ID self to Editor Tim. Denials of this reality, no matter what the sources nor the b/b/feelings on which built, do little to assist in the complex and very difficult task we must face, to remedy what is now damaging our environment and do SOMEthing sensible, rational, reasonable and feasible about it. Good luck for those who do not pitch in to assist with first, understanding; and then some cooperative action to make some progress towards solution. Unfortunately you will suffer same disasters we all face, if SOMEthing is NOT finally worked out by those willing to do so. STS, yours is mythical and nonexistent; JB, so we find out who uses what: THEN what ? Cut off their electricity, ration their oil, disconnect their water ? OR do we just shoot 'em, for short order action, IF we decide they using TOO MUCH ??? WHO decides and how ?? Fred, your link may be useful for anyone who really wishes to work on some part of the worldwide problem. Thank you all for your participation; "richly appreciated".

JB June 7, 2008 8:24 am (Pacific time)

Fred the best way to gage energy consumption in a specific geographic location is to see what the average consumer (house/apartment) use is and what the business use is. It's the types of businesses in a specific area that differentiate one geographic area from another. Compare and contrast the average consumer use with say Barbara Streisand and people of similar means. Or take our elected politicans in DC and ask them to share their energy consumption stats with the public. Some will of course, but many will not is my guess.

Fred June 6, 2008 8:33 pm (Pacific time)

Check out this Interactive US Energy Footprint Chart, an interactive United States Energy Consumption Footprint chart, illustrating Greenest States and more. This site has all sorts of stats on individual State energy consumptions, demographics and State energy offices. http://www.eredux.com/states/

sts June 6, 2008 4:25 pm (Pacific time)

I see... tax the middle class, who work hard, so that those who dont want to work can not work but live better. sounds like a great idea. We are ALL going to be low income within just a few years with that attitude. This whole global warming is a scam anyway. Did you look out your window today? June 6th? Have you even spent 20 minutes looking into the companies that promote this? All of them are either under grants from the elite, or from big companies ready to cash in. turn off your TV!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous June 6, 2008 12:29 pm (Pacific time)

This Bill is history. I would imagine it may be brought up next year, but expect more evidence from skeptics/scientists to challenge prevailing wisdom.

[Return to Top]

Low-Income Advocates Support Whitehouse on Climate Change

Quick Links

DINING

MUST SEE SALEM

AUCTIONS - APPRAISALS

CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

ONLINE SHOPPING

Advertise with Salem-News