The Center for American Progress continued its work on China and global climate change by calling Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) to task for distorting the facts. Sensenbrenner, who is the ranking member of the House Select Committee for Energy Independence and Global Warming, traveled to China last month. On his way home from Beijing, he told reporters:
"It’s business as usual for China. The message that I received was that China was going to do it their way regardless of what the rest of the world negotiates in Copenhagen."
Andrew Light and Julian Wong of the Center for American Progress criticized Sensenbrenner for his tired rhetoric:
The take-home message from his full remarks and previous statements were clear: The United States should do nothing on climate change because China will do nothing. The line that China is not cooperating with the world on climate change is an old wag in the debate over enacting a domestic cap and trade.
The authors explained that Sensenbrenner’s opposition the American Clean Energy and Security Act is nothing new, but described his distortion of remarks by Chinese economist Pan Jiahua, the Director of the Institute for Urban and Environmental Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, as "troubling."
Sensenbrenner accused Professor Pan "denigrating the Waxman-Markey [energy and climate] bill" and insinuated that he might be "speaking for China." Ultimately, Sensenbrenner concluded that Pan’s remarks in a personal interview represented a "significant step backwards."
Just how far off was Sensenbrenner? In an exclusive statement for the Center for American Progress, Professor Pan described the Representative’s selective reading of his comments as "improper and unethical." He went further, saying that the comments were intended to "frighten the American public and halt U.S. progress on solving the problem of global warming."
In his statement, Professor Pan said that ACES is "a positive move forward for the U.S. especially after eight years of inaction on climate change," and he explicitly endorsed the "carbon cap equivalents" approach proposed by CAP.
Although Light and Wong were critical of Sensenbrenner, they called upon readers to "move beyond the misleading statements by those detractors on the international and domestic front that are using every conceivable false argument as an excuse for inaction."