A picture of Representative Ted S. Yoho
Ted Y.
Republican FL 3

About Rep. Ted
  • Importance of Abundant Energy

    by Representative Ted S. Yoho

    Posted on 2015-12-08

    submit to reddit

    Read More about Importance of Abundant Energy

    YOHO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for doing this very important Special Order. I commend Mr. Rothfus and Mr. Kelly for doing this.

    I have got several things I would like to talk about. The first thing is that 190 countries are meeting in Paris to negotiate a new international agreement on climate change at the 21st session of the Conference of Parties.

    According to the U.S. Special Envoy for Climate Change, President Obama intends to commit the U.S. to giving tens of billions of dollars per year to finance green energy initiatives in developing countries to reduce emissions by 26 to 28 percent below levels by 2025.

    America, wake up. These tens of billions of dollars are coming out of your money. We have seniors that can't buy health insurance or pay their rent or insurance. We have seniors and other families that are suffering here in America. But yet, the President wants to commit tens of billions of our hardworking American taxpayers' money, and mine, too, to these other countries.

    The Obama administration has indicated that the President does not intend to submit the Paris agreement to the Senate for its advice and consent as an article II treaty. This is a clear violation of the constitutional laws and ideals of America, and it will not be tolerated. We will hold him accountable.

    The lack of progress becomes even more apparent when you start looking at the country level. China, for its part, offered to reach peak carbon dioxide emissions around 2030, while reducing emissions per unit of Gross Domestic Product by 60 to 65 percent by that time from its 2005 levels. But the U.S. Government's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory has already predicted China's emissions would peak on their own around 2030, even without climate change initiatives. So they don't have any skin in the game.

    A Bloomberg analysis found that China's 60 to 65 percent target is less ambitious than the level it would reach by continuing business as usual. All this came before the country admitted it was burning 17 percent more coal than previously estimated. That is more coal than the entire country of Germany.

    So, our government, our President, and this administration want to bind America to a United Nations treaty.

    And let's look at the facts. America has been blessed with an abundance of energy sources. We should utilize all those sources to the best of our ability--from coal, petroleum, natural gas, solar, wind, hydro electric, and even manmade nuclear energy. We should use those to the best of our and society's advantage.

    {time} 1845 We should not cripple the American power companies that supply energy to the manufacturers of America that employ the American citizens at the whim of an administration's green agenda and is paid for on the backs of hardworking American citizens in the way of lost jobs that go overseas because of higher regulations and energy costs, decreased wages because of a decrease in competition in the job market, higher energy costs felt by all of our citizens, but more on the lower end, as has been mentioned here, on the economic income scale because a higher percentage of their money goes to pay their utility bills.

    Look at the facts. Geologists think the world may be frozen up again, 1895.

    Disappearing glaciers--disappearing glaciers--slowly with a persistence that means there is going to be complete annihilation. That is in 1902.

    Professor Schmidt warns us of an encroaching new ice age, 1912.

    Scientists say Arctic ice will wipe out Canada, 1923.

    The discoveries of changes in the Sun's heat and the southward advances of glaciers in recent years have given rise to the conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age, 1923 again.

    Most geologists think the world is growing warmer and that it will continue to get warmer, 1929.

    The point of this is the consensus of scientists has been wrong over the course of the years. If you look at recent facts, that 2-degree Centigrade benchmark that the scientific community says we can't get warmer than 2 degrees or life on Earth is going to stop to exist as we know it, that is not a scientific number. That is an arbitrary number. I did the research on it.

    That number comes from an economist in 1970 that the environmental community has gravitated to. They have used that as a benchmark, and it is a fallacy.

    The Earth's temperature has increased approximately one-half of a degree Centigrade over the past 20 to 30 years. This comes from the NASA Web site. I encourage the American people that are watching this to go to the NASA Web site. Look at the facts.

    Also look at that half-a-degree Centigrade increase in our temperature in the world. It partly is attributed to the new way they are measuring things today. They are more accurate than they were 20 or 30 years ago. So that is a variation.

    The other thing is they predict and they estimate that over 50 percent of that half-a-degree Centigrade increase--over 50 percent of that--comes from solar activity, not manmade or anthropogenic causes.

    So what does that mean? That means do we just not really even look at the causes of these? No. Not at all.

    Let's look at the facts. Even in left-leaning publications--in fact, I brought one here. I don't want to call them left-leaning, but the article in The Economist has a 14-page ``Clear thinking needed'' on climate change.

    Even in this article they had some fallacies. One of them was saying the warming in the world is 100 percent by human activity. That is a fallacy. That is false reporting.

    The other thing is they go in there and they say that, with all the wind power that we have put into the world, around the globe, and all the solar activity around the globe, and the massive government programs to supplement these, it has failed to make a dent in the so- called manmade CO2 output on a global scale, and it is not reliable.

    All those other forms of energy, the renewables, they are not reliable for baseline production, which is needed for national security.

    As I close, I just want to say this: As I said, America has been blessed with an abundance of energy sources. So let us, as leaders of this great Nation, make energy policies that are common sense in nature and don't entangle us, as a Nation, with other nations that cripple us as a Nation not just economically, but they weaken our national security, and they are going to be paid for by all Americans and, again, felt mostly by those that can't afford it.

    This treaty is a bad deal, and the President owes the respect to the American people to go through the people's House and the Senate to have any agreement binding.

    I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania, and I ask him to continue the good work.

  • submit to reddit
  • Register your constituent account to respond

    Constituent Register