|
|
|
Jobs and Economic Impacts
Congress and the administration are debating measures that, if approved, could have dire economic consequences—killing jobs, driving small-and mid-sized firms out of business and shutting down our ability to safely and reliably produce our domestic energy resources. With 15 million people out of work, now is not the time for energy legislation that could hurt the American economy.
Increased Taxes
Congressional proposals to repeal or modify several long-standing, legitimate tax policies related to the U.S. oil and natural gas industry would further weaken the economy, destroy jobs and undermine future energy security.
The oil and natural gas industry supports more than 9 million American jobs and 7.5 percent to the nation’s gross domestic product.
Claims that the industry does not pay its "fair share" of taxes are patently false: in 2009, the oil and natural gas industry had an effective tax rate of 48.4 percent, compared to 28.1 percent for other industries.
Repealing tax provisions that were enacted to create U.S. jobs and keep them here, such as the domestic jobs manufacturing deduction, would make U.S. companies less competitive abroad and reduce the number of jobs in the United States.
- More energy means more jobs, higher incomes and economic growth.
- Until Washington acknowledges the critical link between energy and the U.S. economy, we will not have the energy or economic growth that our country needs.
- According to the government’s own estimates, increased domestic oil and natural gas development will be necessary to meet our nation’s increasing energy demands now and over the next several decades.
- Offshore safety and environmental protections must and will be improved. But, at the same time, any legislative and regulatory proposals must protect the American people and advance our nation’s energy and economic interests.
- Proposals that would reduce or delay deepwater development could result in:
- The loss of as many as 175,000 direct, indirect and induced jobs a year associated with deepwater development through 2035;
- Additional job losses if shallow water drilling projects are affected;
- A reduction of annual gross domestic product by more than $20 billion per year or a cumulative impact of approximately $500 billion in the next 25 years;
- A reduction in long-term U.S. oil production by 27 percent; and
- An increase in long-term U.S. foreign oil imports by 19 percent.
Six-month Moratorium
About 30 percent of the nation’s total domestic oil production and 13 percent of domestic natural gas is produced in the Gulf of Mexico, where a majority of the nation’s offshore development takes place.
Of that, approximately 80 percent of the oil and 45 percent of the natural gas in the Gulf come from deepwater exploration.
It is unnecessary and shortsighted to shut down a major part of the nation’s energy lifeline while we work to enhance offshore safety.
A moratorium threatens enormous harm to the nation and to the Gulf region, putting 46,200 jobs and 4 percent of deepwater production at risk, and wiping out up to $500 million in potential government revenue in 2011 alone.
This issue is much larger than the oil industry—access to affordable energy impacts every sector of our economy, every state in our nation and every American family.
The moratorium is essentially a moratorium on economic development.
The Gulf of Mexico region is already struggling from devastating losses from Hurricanes Katrina and Gustav while struggling with the depressed national economy. Stifling one of the area’s primary economic engines would cripple the local economy and result in long-term consequences.
A study by Dr. Joseph R. Mason of Louisiana State University demonstrated that, in addition to job loss, the moratorium will also affect local tax revenues; with Texas estimated to decrease by $22.8 million. |
|
ConocoPhillips is fully committed to the prompt enactment of national climate change legislation in the Unites States. We urge Congress to develop and enact legislation to address the growth of greenhouse gas emissions while at the same time ensuring the availability of secure, affordable and reliable energy.
|
"We support adoption of a bill to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but in a manner that is transparent, protects jobs, provides affordable energy, and continues to provide for US economic growth."
-- Red Cavaney, senior vice president for government affairs, ConocoPhillips. As quoted in Oil & Gas Journal, Aug. 18, 2009 |
ConocoPhillips believes the American Clean Energy and Security Act (also known as Waxman-Markey), passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on June 26, contained many elements intended to balance greenhouse gas emissions reductions with economic growth and national security needs. However, we do not believe it fully achieved this goal. Read more about our concerns with this bill and our actions to fix important gaps.
The next step in the legislative process is for the U.S. Senate to consider its version of climate change legislation.
This legislation will impact all Americans, and you deserve the opportunity to voice your opinions. We encourage you to do so.
Urge your Senators to consider the following important elements in their discussions and votes on climate change legislation.
- Analyze the impact of proposed legislation. As our Senators deliberate their own bill, they must carefully review the potential consequences of any climate legislation on the economy and on ordinary Americans. Estimates of the increased costs associated with the Waxman-Markey bill range from $150 to $1,000 or more per year per household.
Read more about costs. The bill also could result in a net loss of more than two million U.S. jobs. Read more about jobs. The public and our politicians must understand that legislation to effectively address climate change will come at a cost. We believe that, in the long run, the health and welfare benefits to American consumers and economic advantages to American businesses of properly designed climate legislation will outweigh reasonable cost increases.
- Help U.S. businesses maintain competitiveness in global markets. The House bill provides energy-intensive, trade-exposed U.S. industries with emission allowances that will help these industries compete with imports from countries not subject to greenhouse gas emission regulations. Unfortunately the bill does not adequately protect U.S. refiners facing a similar competitive environment. This could give a competitive advantage to overseas refiners, resulting in increased imports, loss of U.S. jobs, and increased greenhouse gas emissions overseas. Relying on these imports, when we have the technology and capability here at home, will also make America less energy secure. Climate change legislation must protect U.S. business from unregulated foreign competition and should treat all energy-intensive, trade-exposed industries equitably.
- Treat all consumer groups fairly and equitably. Under Waxman-Markey, consumers who use gasoline and diesel will pay a significant portion of the cost of an economy-wide cap and trade program, about 40% in 2012. However, while the bill gives consumers of several forms of energy assistance with anticipated higher costs, it does not provide assistance for consumers of transportation fuels. The Senate should support a proportionate share of allowance value dedicated to consumers of transportation fuels that can be used to mitigate consumer costs and to fund transportation efficiency and technology transformation.
- Encourage greater domestic supplies of clean-burning natural gas through equitable climate change legislation. Our country has an abundance of natural gas, the cleanest burning fossil fuel. Climate change legislation should be designed to take full advantage of these attributes. Unfortunately, the House bill’s allowance allocation provisions and renewable electricity standard would limit the role for this clean, domestic resource in a low-carbon US economy.
- Don’t attempt to pick winners or losers among energy technologies. Legislation that mandates specific energy technologies too early, before they are fully proven at scale, could prove costly to the consumer. Climate change legislation should establish a value for carbon emissions and should foster a business environment where technological innovation and a competitive market will perfect and select the best energy sources.
Learn more about climate change:
- Learn how one industry group believes the legislation will impact your state
- Read the climate change proposal of an alliance of business and environmental groups
- View how your member of the U.S. House voted on this legislation
- View ConocoPhillips’ climate change position and learn about the company’s climate action plan
- Read ConocoPhillips’ statement on the House passage of the proposed legislation
Act Now. Be Heard |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Register to receive updates and calls to action on energy topics. |

|
| |
|
|