Life without natural gas, oil, and coal is not much of a life at all. Click here to learn more about the divestment movement.
Boston Globe Exposes Cynical Tactics of Divestment Activists
February 12, 2015 by Leave a Comment
Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby’s most recent column exposes the cynical tactics of the fossil fuel divestment movement. As Mr. Jacoby explains, divestment activists can’t get away with pressuring people to give up the energy and products of modern life (electricity, computers, central air) so they instead attempt to demonize the men and women who work for natural gas, oil, and coal companies.
Below is an excerpt from Mr. Jacoby’s column:
The rise of fossil fuels has led to dramatic gains in human progress — whether that progress is measured in terms of life expectancy, income, education, health, sanitation, transportation, or leisure. Nearly everything that is comfortable and convenient about modern civilization depends on the ready availability of energy, and nearly 90 percent of our energy comes from oil, gas, and coal. Pro-divestment activists know better than to push people to give up electricity, air travel, computers, or central heating — all of which would vanish without the fossil fuel industry. Instead they demonize the industry, reasoning that it will be easier to turn Big Oil into a pariah than to convince the public to abandon its cars and smartphones.
To read the rest of the column, click here.
Congress Should Repeal the RFS
February 12, 2015 by 3 Comments
The RFS is bad policy. It drives up costs for families and mandates a product on the American people whether they want or need it. Two different approaches to dealing with this problem are before Congress. The first and more preferable option is a complete repeal of the RFS, such as HR 703 by Rep. Goodlatte. The second approach taken by bills introduced by Rep. Goodlatte (HR 704) and Senators Toomey and Feinstein (S. 577) primarily focus on corn ethanol and fall short of true reform. Here are seven reasons why this corn-only approach is not a step in the right direction:
- It’s an unnecessary government mandate on the American people – While the partial repeal deals with the implied corn ethanol RFS mandate, it fails to address the cellulosic and advanced biofuel mandates, which force expensive products on the American people. The government should not dictate which fuels consumers must use. If people want to use ethanol or gasoline or a mixture of both, they should be able to decide, not Washington bureaucrats.
- It focuses the mandate on the most expensive forms of biofuels –Today, corn ethanol is a viable market product because it is a cost-effective way to increase the octane in the fuel supply. With or without the RFS, corn ethanol will continue to be used because it is a less expensive product than other alternatives. By reducing the implied corn mandate and leaving the mandates for other forms of biofuels in place, it props up more expensive forms of biofuels (namely advanced and cellulosic). These biofuels are not viable in the market because they are incredibly expensive—for instance, the Defense Logistics Agency has a history of paying exorbitant sums for “advanced” biofuels, with many contracts averaging $30 to $60 per gallon, compared to around $3 for conventional fuels. If the mandate is focused toward costly advanced biofuels, consumers will feel the brunt of rising gas prices as refiners struggle to meet the mandate.
- It gives too much discretion to the EPA – Repealing the implied corn mandate does nothing to hinder EPA’s ability to illegally promote cellulosic or advanced biofuels. The EPA mandated refiners to produce unrealistic amounts of cellulosic. In 2010, when refiners could not reach EPA’s impossible goal to blend millions of gallons of nonexistent cellulosic biofuel, the refiners took EPA to court and won. The D.C. Circuit Court found that EPA’s actions violated the law. This, coupled with the fact that the EPA has not set RFS volume standards for 2014 or 2015, proves that the EPA cannot be trusted to regulate renewable fuel standards. Additionally, when the programs volume levels expire in 2022 the EPA can continue to run the program as it sees fit.
- It allows the EPA to inflate “advanced biofuel” numbers with accounting gimmicks – In the face of nonexistent cellulosic production, the EPA simply redefined what constitutes “cellulosic” to include certain types of compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, and electricity. This redefinition defies the intent of the law, which is to blend more renewable fuel into gasoline. It is physically impossible to blend CNG, LNG, and electricity into gasoline, which means refiners are simply buying credits to comply with the law on paper without actually increasing the supply of renewable fuel. Failing to repeal the entire RFS would allow the EPA to continue this illegal practice.
- The proposal to base the cellulosic mandate on “actual” production does not solve the problem – The Goodlatte partial reform bill aims to set the required cellulosic volumes at the “actual” volumes from the previous year. The problem is, which level of production is the actual level? Depending on which EPA definition of cellulosic is used, the production level in 2014 was either 44,168 gallons or over 33 million gallons. Without significantly reigning in EPA’s authority, this provision will do little to protect consumers.
- It encourages inefficient ethanol trading – Another byproduct of the advanced biofuel mandate is the absurd Brazilian sugarcane/corn ethanol trade. In the name of reducing GHGs, the U.S. imports sugarcane from Brazil for use as an “advanced” biofuel and exports corn ethanol to replace it in Brazil. EPA does not account for these GHG emissions. This process only increases costs and overall energy used. Lastly, sugarcane ethanol is not an “advanced” fuel. It has been around since the 1920s.
- It moves the RFS toward a California-style Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) – Removing the corn-ethanol mandate simply makes the RFS more like California’s hugely expensive LCFS. One study determined that California’s LCFS could raise the price of a gallon of gas by over $2.50. Another study found that a potential Northeast/Mid-Atlantic LCFS would cost 147,000 jobs and lower the GDP by $27 billion. A corn-only repeal would pave the way for a national LCFS, which would cost Americans money at the pump and result in lost jobs.
To see a more detailed analysis regarding the problems with partial reform, see this post.
The American Energy Alliance urges Members to refrain from supporting HR 704 or S. 577 to partially repeal the RFS and instead co-sponsor HR 703 and any viable Senate companion to completely repeal the program. Co-sponsoring HR 703 will be calculated into a Member’s final overall score in the American Energy Alliance Scorecard.
Opinion: Gas, Coal, Oil Fuel Our Everyday Lives
February 12, 2015 by Leave a Comment
American Energy Alliance President Thomas Pyle published an opinion piece in the Miami Herald today. As divestment activists prepare to descend on Miami, Mr. Pyle shows how divesting from fossil fuels amounts to divesting from the energy and products of modern life. The text of the piece is below:
Gas, coal, oil fuel our everyday lives
By Thomas Pyle
2/11/2015
Imagine a group of activists that spends its time opposing companies that produce soap, surgical steel and sterile plastics used in hospitals — because it is the “moral” thing to do. It sounds crazy, but it’s already happening.
The same groups pushing to eliminate these life-saving technologies and many other everyday products will soon descend on Miami. The leaders of this movement are holding a two-day event to convince Floridians to “divest” any stocks or bonds from the companies that help make these essential items.
In reality, these activists want Floridians to “divest” from modern life.
Everyone knows that when they flip on a light switch or fuel up their cars, they are using energy. But you might not realize that many of the products we use every day also come from energy — particularly natural gas, oil and coal.
Besides generating 27 percent of America’s electricity, natural gas is used to make fertilizer, pharmaceuticals, plastics and fabrics, just to name a few. If you’re wearing a shirt made from nylon or polyester, you’re wearing a product that came from natural gas.
The same applies to oil and coal. Besides supplying 95 percent of the nation’s transportation fuel, oil is used to make asphalt, aluminum, shampoo, cosmetics and much more. Every step of your morning, from putting on deodorant to driving to work, involves products derived from oil.
Coal, meanwhile, supplies the largest share of the United States electricity, at almost 40 percent. Coal is also used to make steel, concrete, aspirins, soaps, carbon fiber, and more. Imagine life without roads, bridges, and sidewalks. That is life without coal.
Divesting from natural gas, oil, and coal is akin to divesting from modern civilization. But that’s exactly what the so-called fossil fuel divestment movement wants Floridians to do.
The divestment activists who are coming to Miami don’t just want to take away Floridians’ energy, but also the soap, steel, and plastics, which make modern life possible. Floridians should tell these activists to take a hike.
THOMAS PYLE, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN ENERGY ALLIANCE, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Divestment Hypocrisy Explained in One Picture
February 11, 2015 by 2 Comments
The graphic below exemplifies the hypocrisy of radical anti-energy activists, who pressure you to give up everything from the deodorant you put on in the morning to the car you drive to work—even as they use fossil fuels in their daily lives. Given that this activist is literally covered with products made from fossil fuels, perhaps we should be celebrating “Hydrocarbon Appreciation Day” instead.
Click the photo below to follow the rest of our efforts on our Divestment Truth page. If you’re ready to take action and stand up against the morally bankrupt divestment movement, click here to join us in our fight for affordable, reliable energy!
Op-Ed: The Divestment Delusion
February 11, 2015 by Leave a Comment
With “Global Divestment Day,” aka Global Poverty Day, right around the corner, we thought we’d re-post this informative piece from Travis Fisher, an economist at the Institute for Energy Research. The piece, “The Divestment Delusion,” originally appeared in National Review. Enjoy.
The Divestment Delusion
Fossil-fuel divestment is not “moral”; it’s mad.
By Travis Fisher
For a moment during his climate speech on June 25, President Obama joined the fossil-fuel-divestment movement when he said, “Invest. Divest. . . . Make yourself heard.” The leading group of divestment activists, 350.org, said, “Obama’s shout-out to the fossil fuel divestment movement is a huge endorsement.” But what did Obama endorse, exactly?
The goal of the fossil-fuel-divestment movement is for “institutional leaders to immediately freeze any new investment in fossil fuel companies, and divest from direct ownership and any commingled funds that include fossil fuel public equities and corporate bonds within 5 years.”
Divestment activists claim their movement rests on the same moral foundation as the movement to divest from South Africa during apartheid. The website gofossilfree.org, a spin-off of 350.org, tells the success story of the latter movement:
By the mid-1980s, 155 campuses — including some of the most famous in the country — had divested from companies doing business in South Africa. 26 state governments, 22 counties, and 90 cities, including some of the nation’s biggest, took their money from multinationals that did business in the country. The South African divestment campaign helped break the back of the Apartheid government, and usher in an era of democracy and equality.
Comparing the anti-fossil-fuel movement to the anti-apartheid movement is shameful. The anti-apartheid movement fought to free oppressed South Africans from their racist government. The fossil-fuel-divestment movement, in contrast, isn’t fighting political oppression or racism. It’s fighting the energy Americans rely on to live their lives. It’s crucial to note that over the last decade, petroleum, natural gas, and coal provided 87 percent of our energy. Data from 2011 show that wind and solar power contributed less than 2 percent of our energy. We should call the fossil-fuel-divestment movement by its true name — the energy-divestment movement.
Furthermore, victory in South Africa was a laudable goal — it meant equality under the law for all citizens. “Victory” for the energy-divestment campaign would mean subjecting every American to expensive, unreliable energy in exchange for a negligible change in global temperature. It’s important to keep in mind that even if the U.S. immediately stopped all carbon dioxide emissions, by 2050 the global temperature “savings” would only amount to just over a tenth of a degree Fahrenheit.
Ignoring the numbers, energy-divestment activists continue to frame the issue as a moral imperative. Their propaganda includes lines such as, “If it is wrong to wreck the climate, then it is wrong to profit from that wreckage.” The demand of that moral imperative is to immediately divest yourself of any holdings in fossil-fuel-related companies, and to convince everyone you know to do the same. Once university board members join the movement, voilà! Fossil-fuel companies start to go under. But is a world without fossil fuels a more moral place?
What about the moral imperative to keep your child cool during a hot summer day, to provide students reliable light for studying at night, to travel hundreds of miles to be with your family on a special occasion? Without fossil fuels, these essential parts of modern life would be prohibitively expensive, if not outright impossible. In that sense, fossil fuels free us from a harsh state of being (too hot, too dark, too far from friends and family — whatever the case may be). They make possible our humane and comfortable standard of living.
This conflict between moral imperatives — between the living standards made possible by abundant energy and the perceived climate catastrophe — should present divestment activists with an ethical dilemma, but they fail to recognize it. Divestment activists: Why do you think it is moral to wreck people’s access to energy?
Energy sounds like an abstract concept, but it’s not. It’s so central to modern life that we tend to take it for granted. It’s what makes everything possible. It’s the glow behind the computer screen in front of you. It’s how you got to work today. It’s the miracle that, when you go home and turn on the light switch, a power plant hundreds of miles away lights the room, whether the wind is blowing or not, rain or shine, day or night. Why do divestment activists think it’s right to ruin that? More important, why did the president endorse them?
— Travis Fisher is a policy associate at the Institute for Energy Research in Washington, D.C.
PACE Poll: Majority of Americans Support Oil Exports
February 10, 2015 by 1 Comment
A new poll commissioned by the Producers for American Crude Oil (PACE) finds that over two-thirds of registered voters support crude oil exports. Conducted by FTI Consulting, the survey also shows that 65% of voters believe “American oil producers should be allowed to sell crude oil to customers in the U.S. and to customers in countries who are trading partners.”
While some worry that allowing oil exports would raise gasoline prices, PACE’s survey found that 76% of registered voters say giving American oil producers the ability to sell their wares abroad would result in a positive overall impact on our economy. Indeed, as the Institute for Energy Research explains, lifting the ban on oil exports would lower gas prices for families, increase domestic energy production, and spur economic growth. Renowned energy historian Daniel Yergin agrees.
Below is a breakout of some of these findings, which show strong public support for expanding America’s energy production:
This widespread public support for American energy development shouldn’t come as a surprise, as the majority of Americans also support the long-delayed Keystone XL pipeline. Unlike far too many politicians and environmental groups inside the beltway, the American public seems to understand that free markets—not government mandates—drive America forward.
VIDEO: Breaking Up with Fossil Fuels is Hard
February 10, 2015 by Leave a Comment
The Environmental Policy Alliance is out with a new video titled “Breaking Up with Fossil Fuels is Hard to Do.” It isn’t just hard, but also undesirable, as fossil fuels are the foundation of modern life. Check out their video below.
Op-Ed: Fossil fuel foes want you to divest from modern life
February 10, 2015 by Leave a Comment
American Energy Alliance President Thomas Pyle penned an opinion piece in The Las Vegas Review-Journal today on the threat posed by fossil fuel divestment activists. The divestment movement will soon descend on Las Vegas and cities across the country to spread its radical message. Mr. Pyle’s op-ed is below:
Fossil fuel foes want you to divest from modern life
By THOMAS PYLE
SPECIAL TO THE LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL
Imagine a group of activists that spends its time opposing companies that produce soap, surgical steel and sterile plastics used in hospitals — because it is the “moral” thing to do. It sounds crazy, but it’s already happening.
The same groups pushing to eliminate these life-saving technologies and many other everyday products will soon descend on Las Vegas. The leaders of this movement are holding an event — part of Global Divestment Day on Friday and Saturday — to convince Nevadans to “divest” any stocks or bonds from the companies that help make these essential items.
In reality, these activists want Nevadans to “divest” from modern life.
Of course, divestment activists don’t say they want to divest from modern life. Instead, they urge people to divest their holdings in fossil fuel companies. The problem is that fossil fuel companies make many of the life-saving products that will be divested, along with fuel.
Everyone knows that when they flip on a light switch or fuel up their cars, they are using energy. But you may not realize that many of the products we use every day also come from energy — particularly natural gas, oil and coal.
Take natural gas. Besides generating 27 percent of America’s electricity, natural gas is used to make fertilizer, pharmaceuticals, plastics and fabrics, just to name a few. If you’re wearing a shirt made from nylon or polyester, you’re wearing a product that came from natural gas.
The same applies to oil and coal. Besides supplying 95 percent of our nation’s transportation fuel, oil is used to make asphalt, aluminum, shampoo, cosmetics and much more. Every step of your morning — from putting on deodorant to driving to work — involves products derived from oil.
Coal, meanwhile, supplies the largest share of U.S. electricity, at almost 40 percent. But it doesn’t end there. Coal is also used to make steel, concrete, aspirin, soap, carbon fiber and more. Imagine life without roads, bridges and sidewalks. That is life without coal.
Divesting from natural gas, oil and coal is akin to divesting from modern civilization. But that’s exactly what the so-called fossil fuel divestment movement wants Nevadans to do.
On the group’s website (www.350.org), divestment activists call on the world to “go fossil free.” But as we’ve seen, life without natural gas, oil and coal isn’t much of a life at all.
You don’t have to look far to see what life is like for those who lack access to the energy and products produced using fossil fuels. For the 1.3 billion people around the world who don’t have electricity, natural gas- and coal-fired power plants could mean the difference between life and death.
Where people use more fossil fuels, poverty recedes. This occurred in the United States during the Industrial Revolution — and it is occurring in developing countries today.
In China, rising natural gas, oil and coal consumption has led to higher life expectancy, lower mortality rates for young children and improved sanitation facilities. The same is true in India and Brazil, where quality of life is improving dramatically as both countries use more abundant, reliable and affordable energy.
Those last words are key. Energy isn’t useful on a large scale unless there is a lot of it, it can be depended on when it’s needed, and it isn’t too expensive for people to use. And right now, fossil fuels are the only energy sources that fit the bill.
In other words, the world can’t divest from fossil fuels without resigning billions of people around the world to darkness and poverty.
The divestment activists coming to Las Vegas don’t just want to take away Nevadans’ energy, but also the soap, steel and plastics that make modern life possible. Nevadans should tell these activists to take a hike.
Thomas Pyle is president of the American Energy Alliance.
Divestment Could Deny Students Access to Higher Education
February 10, 2015 by Leave a Comment
Activists will soon convene in cities across the country to pressure universities and individuals to “divest” any stocks and bonds they own in natural gas, oil, and coal companies. The organizers of “Global Divestment Day” call this a “moral” cause, but is it? That depends on whether you think it’s moral to deny students access to higher education.
A new report shows that fossil fuel divestment comes at a high price for those who can least afford it. Writing in The Wall Street Journal, economic consultant Daniel Fischel compared returns over a 50 year period for two investment portfolios: one that included energy stocks and one that did not.
The portfolio that contained energy stocks outperformed the divested portfolio by 0.7 percent, or 70 basis points. That’s equivalent to the growth of university endowments declining by $3.2 billion each year, the report found. As Fischel explained, “A reduction in wealth of this magnitude could have a substantial impact on the ability of universities to achieve their goals, such as the research, services and scholarships that they offer.”
There’s a reason most major universities want nothing to do with divestment—it means less money for the university, which could mean less merit or need-based financial aid for students. Last year, facing pressure from divestment activists, Tufts University President Tony Monaco spelled it out in simple terms:
To put the projected impact [of divestment] in perspective, $75 million would provide endowment income to fund scholarships for 100 undergraduates or annual stipends for 125 Ph.D. students, or fund the entire 2012 state appropriation for the Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine.
In short, in today’s environment, divestment would likely result in a significant reduction in operating funds and would have an immediate adverse impact on the educational experience at Tufts. It would not be prudent to expose the university to that kind of risk at this time. [Emphasis mine]
In other words, divestment could leave students without the financial support they need to continue their education. Other university presidents—Harvard, Duke, and Tulane, to name a few—have issued similar statements rejecting divestment. It’s difficult to see how depriving young people of a chance to earn a college degree is a “moral” cause, but that’s what divestment activists will soon fight for at a college campus near you.
To learn more about the radical divestment movement, click here.
