Chuck Hagel on Energy & Oil

Republican Sr Senator (NE)


Kyoto Protocol would hurt US businesses & slow growth by 1%

In August 1997 Hagel was a featured speaker at an Australian conference on the international treaty on the environment, commonly known as the Kyoto Protocol.

Hagel had been a cosponsor of a successful Senate resolution to oppose the treaty. It would have required industrial plants--but not automobile manufacturers--to cut pollution from burning fossil fuels to 2000 levels by 2010. Hagel said the treaty would hurt US businesses, reducing economic growth by 1% in the 1st year alone and costing up to 1.5 million jobs as well as raising energy prices for consumers, farmers, business, and industry. The July resolution put the Senate on record as opposing any treaty that would bind industrialized nations to reductions in greenhouse gases without requiring similar commitments from the developing world.

Source: Chuck Hagel: Moving Forward, by Charlyne Berens, p.104 , Sep 1, 2006

Not convinced by science, but willing to work with allies

Hagel said he was not yet convinced that global warming was due primarily to greenhouse-gas emissions from industries and automobiles. The science behind the assertions of global warming may not have convinced him to act, but his internationalist position seems to have done the trick. The senator said a global response to climate change is "a big deal to our allies, and it's time we reconnect with them." The issue deserves attention not only on the merits but also because America's record on the environment has become one of many image problems for the US, Hagel said; "Here's the US, the biggest polluter, the wealthiest nation, pushing everybody around unilaterally." He believes that needs to change.

Besides that, he added, "It's just smart for us to reduce greenhouse gasses, to pay attention to improving the environment. It's smart to find alternative sources of energy."

Source: Chuck Hagel: Moving Forward, by Charlyne Berens, p.107 , Sep 1, 2006

Voted NO on tax incentives for energy production and conservation.

OnTheIssues.org Explanation:A "Cloture Motion" would end debate on the bill, and then allow a vote on passage. This motion failed (3/5ths of the Senators must vote YEA), based on objections of how the new incentives would be paid for.Congressional Summary:A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide Tax incentives for energy production and conservation, to extend certain expiring provisions, and to provide individual income tax relief.