House Republicans are intensifying their assault on the Obama administration's clean technology and climate policies.

The spending legislation they introduced Friday would strip U.S. EPA of its ability to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, gut the State Department's climate aid programs and slash funding for energy and climate research across the federal government ClimateWire, Feb. 14).

Yesterday, as the House began debate on the measure, which would fund government operations through Sept. 30, the targets became more specific. Among more than 400 amendments filed with the House Rules Committee are Republican proposals to ax funding for the State Department's top climate negotiator, the White House environment office and the U.S. contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.).

An amendment by Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) would defund several high-profile positions, including the special envoy for climate change post now held by Todd Stern.

"Frankly, a lot of these czars are trying to run jobs out of our country," Scalise said.

As special envoy for climate change, Stern serves as the America's lead negotiator to the U.N. body trying to create a new international global warming treaty. He has been the U.S. voice during the past two U.N. climate conferences in Copenhagen, Denmark, and Cancun, Mexico, where the United States was instrumental in prodding China to accept emission reduction goals and transparency standards. Under Scalise's amendment, Stern's salary and expenses would be wiped out. Yet nothing in the wording of the proposal would shut down the State Department's Office of Global Climate Change.

The envoy position has existed under various titles within the government for about 20 years under both Democratic and Republican administrations. Those familiar with the climate treaty talks argue it would be inconceivable for the United States not to be represented in global treaty negotiations and called Scalise's amendment symbolic.

"It's hard to imagine that anyone really wants us to be absent from these negotiations," said Nigel Purvis, a former State Department climate negotiator who served in the Clinton and Bush administrations.

"These are high-level, sometimes head-of-state international diplomatic negotiations and issues," he said. "It's not realistic to think the U.S. would not have a senior person appointed to defend U.S. vital interests, many of which have strong bipartisan support."

'Why would we deal ourselves out?'

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.) said axing the climate envoy job would be a "huge mistake."

"For years, we've been pushing for key carbon-polluting countries to share accountability, and we strengthened our hand when Todd Stern and his team helped lock down commitments from those countries to measure, report and verify their emissions in Copenhagen and then Cancun," he said. "Why on Earth wouldn't we want America to have a voice in these meetings? We have a stake in the outcome, and the global consensus affects our bottom line, so why would we deal ourselves out instead of playing our hand?"

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce said it, too, favored retaining Stern's position. "From our point of view, regardless of the job title, it is important that the United States have a strong, authoritative voice to represent American interests -- including those in the business community -- in international negotiations," said chamber spokesman Matt Letourneau.

Scalise said the position cuts would save millions of dollars. Asked if it would literally push the replacement for departing White House climate and energy adviser Carol Browner and Stern out of government, he said yes -- unless "they want to work for free."

On the EPA front, Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas) sought to build off language in the original bill that would block EPA from spending money to regulate greenhouse gases. Poe's amendment would specifically prevent EPA from implementing any cap-and-trade program. His office did not respond to requests for comment about how that effort would differ from what the House Republicans' continuing resolution (CR) already offers.

Counterbalancing his provision was language from Colorado Democratic Rep. Jared Polis that would restore EPA's ability to regulate heat-trapping emissions. Polis' twin provisions would create exceptions for regulating greenhouse gases in the case of threats to public health or to "prevent severe environmental degradation."

"The CR itself is entirely unworkable. It's a bill based on campaign promises and sound bites," he told ClimateWire. "Even if the whole framework is unworkable, we want to give the members of the House a clear decision," he said.

Even as the CR seeks to bar EPA from regulating greenhouse gases for the next seven months, the agency is pressing on with its plans to craft new climate regulations. Yesterday, the agency held its second listening session to provide input on new baseline performance standards that would apply to both new and existing fossil fuel power plants and refineries (ClimateWire, Feb. 7).

Expanded ethanol use and newfangled light bulbs attacked

Other proposals targeted EPA's ethanol policies.

Language from House Energy and Commerce Committee member John Sullivan (R-Okla.) took fire at EPA's decision to allow higher ethanol blends to be used at the pump for certain vehicles. EPA has signed off on using 15 percent ethanol blends for cars made in the last decade, marking a 50 percent boost in the amount of ethanol allowed in these blends. His amendment would prevent the agency from spending money to implement that decision.

"The EPA's E15 waiver decisions could adversely impact up to 60% of cars on the road today -- leading to consumer confusion at the pump and possible engine failure in the cars they drive," Sullivan said in a statement, reiterating the concerns of some industry groups. Postponing implementing E15 waivers for the next seven months would give Congress time to "conduct appropriate oversight and ensure consumer safety," he said. Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) also offered two amendments that would block funding for installation of blender pumps that would be used with ethanol blends.

Ethanol groups touted the blender pump and E15 amendments as initiatives that would hamper the nation's ability to move away from fossil fuels and pointed to extensive federal testing on E15 as proof that E15 blends are safe.

"No evidence to date has shown E15 to cause problems in any vehicle, regardless of its vintage," the Renewable Fuels Association said in a statement. The E15 amendment "seems more about political science than physical science," it said.

Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) added an amendment that would take away the Department of Energy's cash to implement new light-bulb standards. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 effectively phases out incandescent light bulbs, which lose 90 percent of their energy as heat and are slowly being banned around the world. But some Republicans have railed against the measure as invading personal freedom.

Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) proposed to gut DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, the government's main division doing applied research on non-fossil energy. McClintock proposed cutting nine of EERE's 17 programs: hydrogen and fuel cells, wind, solar, geothermal, vehicle technology, buildings, industrial technology, water power and biomass. These made up 56 percent of EERE's appropriated budget in the 2010 fiscal year.

Democrats tried to stuff in their own proposals. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.) added an amendment to force Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to approve PACE, a new financing tool that advocates say would let the average homeowner buy a pricey renewable-energy system and pay it back over time. The two government-run enterprises, which make home loans and set mortgage guidelines, have opposed PACE so far, even though it has White House backing.

Ed Markey (D-Mass.) included his "Ending Big Oil Tax Subsidies Act" as an amendment. Markey and other lead Democrats say the bill would cut $40 billion in subsidies over five years.

Climate service and IPCC come under fire

Another pair of amendments is aimed at climate science at home and abroad.

Language offered by House Science, Space and Technology Committee Chairman Ralph Hall (R-Texas) would bar the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration from spending money to create a new "climate service."

The agency announced its plans to create the climate service last spring, arguing that the new office would create a central federal source of information on everything from projections of sea level rise to maps of the nation's best sites for wind and solar power -- information designed to help governments and businesses adapt to climate change.

NOAA officials have been lobbying Congress for approval to reorganize its budget structure to create the climate service during the current federal budget cycle, arguing that it can do so without seeking extra cash. The climate service was also at the heart of President Obama's 2012 NOAA budget request, which calls for a sweeping reorganization of the agency's climate portfolio (ClimateWire, Feb. 15).

But without support from Hall, chairman of the House committee that would have jurisdiction over the climate service, creating the new office seems like a tough slog.

Hall spokesman Zachary Kurz said the new amendment is intended to give the science panel "time to vet the proposal and make sure that the movement of all of these assets does not weaken NOAA's existing missions -- nor NOAA research, in particular."

Meanwhile, a proposal from Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Mo.) would prevent the federal government from funding the work of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The amendment echoes legislation Luetkemeyer first introduced in 2009 and reintroduced earlier this month, citing what he said were the international climate panel's "questionable findings." His current IPCC bill has 23 co-sponsors, including three members of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee.

Luetkemeyer has said he doubts the IPCC's work because scientists who have contributed to the panel's reports are among those whose e-mails were stolen from a server at the University of East Anglia and posted on the Internet in 2009.

Reviews by the British Parliament and separate panels organized by the University of East Anglia, the U.K. Royal Society and Pennsylvania State University found no evidence that scientists who appeared in the e-mails inappropriately manipulated climate data or suppressed scientific debate.

Luetkemeyer isn't convinced. "Criticism of this science intensified over the last two years when e-mails publicly released from a university in England showed that leading global scientists intentionally manipulated climate data and suppressed legitimate arguments in peer-reviewed journals," he said in a statement released earlier this month.

Other climate-related amendments on offer include:

• A measure from freshman Rep. Raúl Labrador (R-Idaho) that would defund the White House Council on Environmental Quality.

• Language from Rep. Steve Pearce (R-N.M.) that would ax the budget of the Interior Department's flagship climate change adaptation initiative. The White House requested $175 million for that work in the fiscal 2012 budget -- an increase of $43.8 million above the 2010 enacted budget.

• A proposal by Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) to defund the "Green the Capitol" office of the House of Representatives. The office has promoted recycling, developed plans to make the Capitol building more energy-efficient, and purchased carbon offsets. Its annual budget is $1 million (Greenwire, July 27, 2010).