|
Ken Cuccinelli on Energy & Oil
|
|
|
We need oil, natural gas, and coal, plus new sources
Virginia should be a national leader in energy independence with the natural resources we have in our Commonwealth. We need oil, natural gas, and coal to power our homes, cars, and economy and Virginia could be doing more to provide that to the world
while growing job opportunities for our middle class. But we also need to find new sources of energy with nuclear, wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, as part of a comprehensive energy program.
As Governor, I want an all of the above energy strategy, but one that takes advantage of all of the resources we have here in
Virginia and off our shores, in an environmentally safe and economically sound manner and with as little government intervention as possible.
Source: VA Governor 2013 campaign website, cuccinelli.com, "Issues"
, Mar 23, 2013
CO2 regulations force unproven & expensive technology
In 2011, about 2/3 of the electricity that America used came from burning fossil fuels such as coal & natural gas. We relied on that fossil fuel-based electricity daily to power our computers, our refrigerators, our lights, our televisions, and even our
electric cars! We relied on oil to heat our homes; power our cars; & power the transport trucks that brought the food to our grocery stores.Using greenhouse gas regulations to force Americans to replace these critical energy sources with more costly,
less abundant, and technologically unproven and unreliable alternatives would undoubtedly slow the US economy and potentially lead to energy shortages--with lines stretched around the block at gas stations, brownouts, and air-conditions that wouldn't
work on the hottest days of the year because of blackouts.
But the Obama administration didn't care about the economic consequences. In fact, the Obama-appointed EPA administrator, Lisa Jackson, said openly: "Economic consequences aren't my job."
Source: Last Line of Defense, by Ken Cuccinelli, p.173
, Feb 12, 2013
Plenty of doubt whether global warming science is "settled"
Because I requested the EPA actually support its research with credible data, I was accused of being anti-science, which surprises me, as science is--or at least used to be--all about the data. I was a big proponent of data! As a former engineer (I was
one before I became an attorney), I have a great respect for science: the scientific method, the certainties of the laws of physics, and the OBJECTIVE quest for truth.I wasn't arguing whether global warming existed. What I was saying was that there
was plenty of doubt that the science was "settled." And when the science was tainted by politics and money, and facts go ignored or hidden in the name of advancing a political agenda, it was no longer science--well, maybe political science. And when
laws were broken in the process and states were told to merely step aside and accept it, that was when state attorneys general were in a position to stand up for the law. My critics said I had a lawsuit against protecting the planet.
Source: Last Line of Defense, by Ken Cuccinelli, p.187
, Feb 12, 2013
We exhale CO2 every day; it's not a killer
In 2009, the EPA used discredited and politicized data it borrowed from the UN to declare that carbon dioxide and the other greenhouse gases like methane were pollutants dangerous to public health because they allegedly caused global warming.
Yet carbon dioxide is what we exhale every second of every day. It keeps the trees alive and allows them to make the oxygen that keeps us alive. It's a wonderful symbiotic system that sustains life on earth.
But to environmentalists, carbon dioxide is a slow killer. And by declaring it a pollutant, the EPA could regulate its emission from everything from power-generating plants, to factories and office buildings, to individual cars and trucks.
In other words, with this single declaration, the EPA was able to put a massive part of the US economy under its control under the guise of stopping global warming.
Source: Last Line of Defense, by Ken Cuccinelli, p. 10-11
, Feb 12, 2013
EPA's cap-and-trade policy is based on junk science
In 2009, when President Obama saw that even a Democratic controlled Congress might have trouble passing a cap-and-trade law to force the first-ever limit on America's carbon dioxide emissions, he decided to have his
EPA come up with its own version of cap-and-trade--one that didn't have to go through lawmakers to get approved.
The problem was, the EPA version was based on junk science borrowed from the UN, and the ensuring excessive regulations would eventually so tightly regulate the American economy that they were going to permanently push companies and jobs out of the US;
force people to drive less, health and cool their homes less, and use their appliance less; and raise the cost of consumer goods and energy for the average family by thousands of dollars a year.
Source: Last Line of Defense, by Ken Cuccinelli, p.168
, Feb 12, 2013
Opposes tailpipe emission rules for CO2 reductions
Cuccinelli said on Jan. 17th, 2011 in a speech to Tea Party activists, that EPA tailpipe emissions rules, "if fully implemented with all the regulations that go with it, they will keep the temperature from rising nearly 5/100 of a degree Fahrenheit.
By 2050."Only 0.05 degrees by 2050? Is that really what the EPA was claiming these rules would do? The EPA's massive document on greenhouse gas emission standards, page 4-101, said: "EPA modeled the anticipated potential effect on climate change and
found that in year 2100, the rule would reduce temperature increases by 0.006-0.015 degrees Celsius," based on pushing fuel efficiency from 33.8 mpg up to 39.5 mpg.
Those Celsius figures translate to a range from 0.011 to 0.027 degrees Fahrenheit.
He actually erred in the agency's favor by overstating the size of projected reductions. He also missed the date, but again erred in the EPA's favor. Because his mistakes were minor and in the EPA's favor, we rate his claim as True.
Source: PolitiFact.com on 2013 Virginia governor debates
, Jan 28, 2011
Page last updated: Nov 28, 2014
