Ayotte is Awful on the Environment - Granite Grok

Ayotte is Awful on the Environment

Kelly-Ayotte-John-McCainOne of the more frequent concerns I hear from conservatarian voters about Kelly Ayotte’s primary opponent Jim Rubens regards past remarks about global warming, energy, and the environment. If you believe that Ayotte should get your Primary vote because “she is better on the environment” than Rubens you may want to rethink that.  Kelly Ayotte is awful on the environment.All the proof you need is in the July edition of The New American, which has a lengthy examination of Kelly Ayotte, the Moderate Senator from New Hampshire. Titled “Ayotte or Not?” the article itemizes her anti-constitutional and unconservative positions (and votes) on a range of issues, including those of an environmental persuasion.

Environment

Another notable instance when Senator Ayotte broke with conservatives and sided with President Obama and progressive liberal Democrats was when she announced her support for the Obama administration’s sweeping new EPA “clean power plan” (CPP). The CPP calls for existing power plants to reduce their carbon emissions 32 percent from 2005 levels by 2030.

My take on that defection is here.

NERA Economic Consulting, an independent non-partisan global firm that is “dedicated to applying economic, finance, and quantitative principles to complex business and legal challenges,” according its website, released an analysis of the economic ramifications of complying with the CPP regulations. The costs for complying with the CPP will run as much as $39 billion a year for both consumers and businesses. NERA also projects that the plan “could total nearly $300 billion from 2022 to 2033.” Ultimately consumers are likely to foot the expensive bill. NERA estimates that 41 states will face double-digit increases in the cost of electricity, with “28 states potentially facing peak year electricity price increases of at least 20 percent.”

Despite these implications, Ayotte stands firm with President Obama in combating the supposed threat of anthropogenic global warming or “climate change.” In a press statement, Ayotte said:

After carefully reviewing this plan and talking with members of our business community, environmental groups, and other stakeholders, I have decided to support the Clean Power Plan to address climate change through clean energy solutions that will protect our environment.

Ayotte voted against two separate efforts to block CPP’s corrosive reach and had abandoned any objection to regulations that will drive up the cost of energy.

Despite initially vowing to vote against any new radical environmental initiatives that would result in price increases, Ayotte has come out of the closet as a full-fledged greenie, eager to advance the president’s supposed anti-climate change agenda. Under “Energy and Water,” on Ayotte’s official Senate website, it states: “Kelly believes that climate change is real, humans significantly contribute to it, and it needs to be addressed.”

-Senator Ayotte joined with three of the Senate’s top moderate and liberal Republicans, Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), to establish the Senate Energy and Environment Working Group.

-Senator Ayotte voted against an amendment… that would have exempted power plant units that burn coal refuse from complying with the EPA’s unconstitutional and burdensome Cross State Air Pollution Rule and the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards.

-She also voted against an amendment..that would have expedited applications to drill on federal public lands and limit further government interference.

-Ayotte also voted against the “U.S.-China Greenhouse Gas Agreement Amendment.” This…would have expressed the sense of the Senate that “the United States should not be a signatory to any bilateral or other international agreement on greenhouse gases if it would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States.”

-Ayotte voted against another amendment… that would have expressed the sense of Congress that the designation of national monuments on federal lands should require the approval of the governor and state legislature of the state in which that portion of federal land resides.

Instead of voting for those Republican or conservative sponsored amendments, Ayotte voted for amendments offered by liberal Democrats and other pro-environmentalist “moderate Republicans” such as herself.

-Ayotte voted for an amendment… that expressed the sense of Congress that climate change is real and that man-made pollution significantly contributes to climate change.

-Ayotte also voted for an amendment offered by Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) to close a tax code “loophole” that exempts tar sands producers from paying into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF)… 

-She voted for an amendment offered by Senator Tom Udall (D-N.M.) that would set a goal for 25 percent of the United States’ electricity consumption to come from renewable sources by 2025…

All of these no and yes votes Ayotte cast during consideration of the Keystone bill were of a “pro-environment position,” according to the League of Conservation Voters’ “National Environmental Scorecard.” However, Ayotte ultimately voted for the Keystone pipeline, a vote that she is sure to boast about to her conservative constituents in the primary while touting her “pro-environment” votes to prospective moderate and liberal voters in the general election.

Other votes she can add to her environmentalist repertoire include voting for Senator Michael Bennet’s (D-Colo.) amendment to the Senate version of the fiscal 2016 budget (S. Con. Res. 11) that called for creating a deficit-neutral reserve fund related to responding to the economic and national security “threat” climate change poses to the United States. And during consideration of the Every Child Achieves Act of 2015 (S. 1177), Ayotte voted for an amendment offered by Senator Ed Markey (D-Mass.) that would establish a K-12 grant program for “climate change education.” According to the League of Conservation Voters, “Participating states would compete for grants in order to create climate change science and solutions curriculum, teacher trainings, and to achieve sustainable building standards.” Unfortunately, her liberal progressive streak doesn’t end here.

Whatever other concerns you might have about voting for Jim Rubens in the primary we should be able to agree that Kelly has proven herself no friend of the conservative or even a Republican agenda on the environment.

 

(All emphasis and formatting changes are mine.)

 

>