ConocoPhillips

• 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 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