News - American Energy Alliance

AEA Statement on Keystone Vote

November 19, 2014 by AEA 1 Comment

WASHINGTON — AEA President Thomas Pyle issued the following statement on tonight’s vote in the U.S. Senate on the Keystone XL pipeline:

“Harry Reid’s infamous tenure as Senate Majority Leader will die as it lived—in dysfunction. The Keystone XL pipeline is an economic no-brainer that will create thousands of jobs and lower gasoline prices. Yet under Harry Reid’s leadership the U.S. Senate seems incapable of advancing even a routine infrastructure project.

“Keystone XL enjoys wide support among the American people and a majority of their elected leaders. Only the national environmentalists and their Democratic allies in the U.S. Senate stand in the way of forcing the President to finally decide whether or not to veto an infrastructure project that everyone else in the country believes is long overdue.

“We look forward to the new leadership in Congress charting a course that departs from the Obama-Reid agenda and instead promotes commonsense energy polices.”

###

Filed Under: Blog, Press Releases Tagged With: harry reid, Keystone XL

Book Review: “The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels”

November 18, 2014 by AEA 1 Comment

On November 13, energy analyst Alex Epstein’s book, The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, made its debut. Epstein makes a convincing case for using more natural gas, coal, and oil on moral grounds. Check out the trailer for the book here.

Here are the top 3 takeaways from The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels:

1. The Focus is on Human Well-Being

It’s clear that Epstein’s focus is on how best to reliably and affordably power the lives of billions of people, a drum that AEA has been beating since its inception. As IER has pointed out before, because of fossil fuels (natural gas, coal, and oil), people live longer, healthier lives. That’s because people use modern energy to power hospitals, to keep food and medicines from spoiling with refrigeration, and to purify water, among other vital uses.

In some ways, Moral Case reminds us a little bit of this Louis C.K. gem:

Using reliable energy has improved life in the last century. As long as human progress is the lens through which we judge natural gas, coal, and oil use, it’s clear that these energy sources have been hugely beneficial.

2. Looking at All the Costs and All the Benefits of Fossil Fuel Use

Environmentalists have a tendency to exaggerate the costs of natural gas, coal, and oil while understating the benefits. Moral Case, however, reminds us that deciding whether these energy sources are moral involves looking at all the costs of their use and all the benefits. When we look at it holistically, the benefits outweigh the costs.

To demonstrate one of the important benefits of reliable energy, here’s one of our favorite graphs from the book — as people have used more natural gas, coal, and oil and emitted more carbon dioxide, fewer people have died from climate-related causes:

Even though climate activists claim that using more CO2 will make the climate less livable, the opposite has been true over time. Reliable energy has allowed us to build a civilization that’s capable of withstanding extreme weather, so that fewer people today are dying from hurricanes, storms, and other climate-related causes.

3. Telling the Stories of People Whose Lives Have been Affected by the Need for Reliable Energy

AEA has always been a fan of telling the stories of people whose lives are affected by the the government’s energy decisions, like this story of a Craig, Colorado couple whose business was seriously threatened because of coal plant closures.

To that effect, we’re moved by the stories Epstein tells in Moral Case about people to whom energy means a lot. The book shares one particularly gut-wrenching story about a woman whose child died prematurely, because the hospital couldn’t power incubators to keep that infant alive. That’s one meaningful example, among many others, of how energy access can make or break peoples’ lives.

All in all, our hats go off to Epstein for taking on the challenge of writing such a bold book, and we’re excited to see it take off.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: Alex Epstein, coal, fossil fuels, natural gas, oil, the moral case for fossil fuels

President Obama, Ugly American?

November 14, 2014 by Dan Kish Leave a Comment

President Obama, while meeting in Myanmar, which consumes a total of about 45,000 barrels of oil per day and is working to produce and consume more energy to lift its millions out of poverty, trash talks the Keystone XL, which would deliver about 800,000 barrels of oil per day to the US.

In his speech, President Obama stated:

“Understand what this project is: It is providing the ability of Canada to pump their oil, send it through our land, down to the Gulf [Coast], where it will be sold everywhere else. It doesn’t have an impact on U.S. gas prices.”

Is this what the modern intelligentsia…the smart people…the sensitive people…look like? He looks much more like the proverbial “Ugly American.” Clueless.

Myanmar energy analysis: http://www.eia.gov/countries/country-data.cfm?fips=BM

Myanmar oil consumption by year: http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?country=mm&product=oil&graph=consumption

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: Keystone XL, oil, President Obama

The Tom SteyeR Street Institute

November 14, 2014 by Thomas Pyle 2 Comments

The Washington D.C. based think-tank, R Street, bills itself as a free market organization who takes a “pragmatic approach to public policy challenges” and favors “consumer choice; low, flat taxes; …and systems that rely on price signals rather than central planning.”[i] So why this group would back a terrible policy like the carbon tax, then, is baffling.

Or maybe not.

You see, in just the last 18 months, R Street has accepted over $580,000 from the Energy Foundation to “advance policy solutions for a stable climate.”[ii] The Energy Foundation is a “partnership of philanthropic investors promoting clean energy technology [with the goal of building] a new energy future by advancing energy efficiency and renewable energy.”[iii] And guess who a major “philanthropic investor” would be? That’s right, the billionaire climate activist Tom Steyer.[iv]

It seems that, at least with respect to R Street’s support for a carbon tax, the old adage is true, “You get what you pay for.”

As we’ve highlighted in the past, there is nothing free-market about the all economic pain, no environmental gain carbon tax. It will stifle growth, harm the economy, and kill jobs.[v]

That’s why it is unfortunate that the folks at R Street have joined forces with the Energy Foundation, an organization that has financed the effort to advance costly government mandates and subsidies (like the wind PTC) for energy sources that would never be able to compete on their own in the marketplace, while at the same time encouraging the adoption of policies like the carbon tax that undermine our proven energy resources.

So, R Street, by teaming up with the Energy Foundation, you may think you are “coalition building”, “finding bipartisan answers”, or “working across the aisle,” but with respect to the carbon tax, it seems you’re just another sword-for-hire in the climate activists’ battle against American families and small businesses.

I’d hold it against you, but it is a free market. Right?

[i]http://www.rstreet.org/about/why-r-street/

[ii]http://www.ef.org/grants-database/#!/keywords=r%20street

[iii]http://www.ef.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/2012_EF_Annual_Report.pdf

[iv]http://capitalresearch.org/2014/08/tom-steyer-the-new-paladin-of-the-left/

[v]http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/conservatives-shouldnt-trust-stelzer-carbon-tax/

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: carbon swap, carbon tax, R Street, Tom Steyer

Progressives’ Reaction to China Deal Shows How to Solve the Climate Debate

November 14, 2014 by Robert P. Murphy Leave a Comment

Not surprisingly, progressives who have long favored a federal crackdown on U.S. carbon dioxide emissions jumped for joy over the announced deal between President Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping. They are arguing that this is a huge rhetorical blow to the critics of U.S. action. But as I’ll show, I can use their own arguments against them, to “prove” that we don’t need Uncle Sam involved in the climate debate at all.

To set the stage, let’s quote from two progressive advocates of aggressive U.S. action. Here’s Paul Krugman’s reaction to the U.S./China deal:

I wish that I believed that logic and reason played any role in the politics of climate change. Because if I did, the news of the US-China deal on carbon emissions would be a moment for sudden new optimism.

After all, one of the main arguments the usual suspects make against action…is that nothing the US does can matter, because China will just keep on emitting…

So you could say that a major prop of the anti-climate-action campaign has just been knocked away. But as I said, it probably won’t matter; they’ll just come up with another excuse.

Or consider James West at Mother Jones, who links to a YouTube video showing Republicans citing China as a reason to refrain from unilateral U.S. cuts. West then writes:

The shock announcement of an ambitious and wide-ranging climate deal between the United States and China is leaving one vociferous group of politicians red-faced: those that have always used China as an excuse for delaying climate action.

The announcement between the two biggest emitters deals a blow to the oft-stated rhetoric that the US must wait for China before bringing domestic climate legislation. And vice versa: China has long used US inaction as an excuse too.

Not anymore.

Believe it or not, this is actually great news. Now that I understand where people like Paul Krugman and the folks at Mother Jones are coming from, I can resolve the whole debate over climate change and State action quite easily.

As the above remarks make clear, Krugman and the other interventionists are perfectly content to take it as gospel that the Chinese will follow through on their non-binding promise to have their emissions peak in the year 2030. The agreement itself says, “China intends to achieve the peaking of CO₂ emissions around 2030 and to make best efforts to peak early and intends to increase the share of non-fossil fuels in primary energy consumption to around 20% by 2030” (emphasis added). In the meantime, of course, U.S. industry and consumers will get smacked with the immediate damage of U.S.-imposed limits on emissions.

Well if that’s how these cats roll, then here’s my proposal: Rather than having the U.S. government impose taxes or mandates, instead we’ll just get the verbal agreement from various power plant owners that they promise to switch to totally renewable energy sources by the year 2030. To quote the climate deal, let’s just get them to say that they “intend” to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. They don’t have to do anything in the meantime, showing their progress toward that goal; we just want their word. And if 2030 rolls around, with a different group of shareholders and CEOs running these companies, they can ignore the previous “intention” of somebody sixteen years earlier with no penalties whatsoever.

I think today’s private-sector executives would be willing to go on record with such a pledge, if it meant that Paul Krugman et al. would be satisfied that the global climate threat had been solved once and for all and thus would leave them alone.

Is that a deal, guys? I would hate to think you apply one set of standards when evaluating a pledge from the head of communist China, versus analogous pledges from U.S. business leaders.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: China, climate change, Paul Krugman, progressives

Fowl Weather

November 13, 2014 by Mike Morrison 1 Comment

Filed Under: Blog, Cartoons

To Rein in Obama’s Climate Agenda, Speaker Boehner Should Oppose PTC

November 12, 2014 by Thomas Pyle Leave a Comment

Speaker of the House John Boehner issued the following statement today on President Obama’s climate deal with China:

“This announcement is yet another sign that the president intends to double down on his job-crushing policies no matter how devastating the impact for America’s heartland and the country as a whole. And it is the latest example of the president’s crusade against affordable, reliable energy that is already hurting jobs and squeezing middle-class families. Republicans have consistently passed legislation to rein in the EPA and stop these harmful policies from taking effect, and we will continue to make this a priority in the new Congress.”

We welcome and agree with the Speaker’s statement. The “deal” with China is a sham and a fraud—requiring nothing on behalf of China and taking credit for environmental improvements that American businesses and American individuals have already made. We encourage the Speaker to make sure that his comments apply to those policies like extending the wind production tax credit (PTC). If the Speaker is serious—and we are confident that he is—the easiest thing he can do to protect American families and businesses from the president’s plan to takeover the electricity system and drive costs up for Americans is to prevent extension of the wind PTC.

It’s pretty simple. A vote to extend the wind production tax credit is a vote for the President’s plan.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: China, John Boehner, Obama, production tax credit, wind ptc

What if President Obama Supported Affordable, Reliable Energy?

November 12, 2014 by AEA Leave a Comment

In a hypothetical world, our President would support America’s energy boom wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, that is not the world we live in.

Until that day comes, Andrew Stiles of the Washington Free Beacon has provided us with a speech the President would give if he actually supported the energy that keeps our lights on.

“What you should’ve asked me is what I plan to do about it [climate change]. Here’s what I’m not gonna do. I’m not going to support policies that will cause energy prices to “necessarily skyrocket,” as the president has said. That’s not a serious solution. Not when hardworking middle class families are still struggling to make ends meet.

You know, some of my opponents are out there literally arguing that we should stop drilling for oil tomorrow, and see if we can get by on wind turbines, or solar panels, or algae. Yes, algae. You know, the stuff that grows on ponds. Go figure.”

Wouldn’t it be refreshing to hear that kind of rhetoric from the White House instead of what we currently get? Stiles continues:

“Now, I understand that there are Democratic donors—some of them billionaires—who have investments in these sorts of companies and would do pretty well for themselves if my opponents got their way.

But I’m not interested in helping a handful of rich guys get even richer. I’m interested in making sure that hardworking Americans aren’t breaking the bank to heat their homes, or fill up the minivan. I would rather they spend that money on groceries, tuition, or maybe starting a new business.”

The entire piece is worth a read. You can find it on the Free Beacon’s website.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: affordable energy, climate change, President Obama

Obama’s Climate Photo-Op: Business As Usual

November 12, 2014 by AEA Leave a Comment

WASHINGTON — American Energy Alliance President Thomas Pyle issued the following statement on President Obama’s climate deal with China:

“President Obama’s back room climate deal with China is a perpetuation of the status quo disguised as meaningful policy change. While China makes empty and non-binding promises that it ‘intends to try’ to halt its emissions growth a decade and a half from now, President Obama promises to accelerate the pace by which his policies raise our energy costs and harm our economy.

“Similar to past agreements, this deal will do little to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, let alone global temperatures. But it will surely stifle our economy and harm American families, particularly the poorest among us and those on fixed incomes.

“The reality is that a growing chorus of developed and developing countries is standing opposed to Obama’s reckless climate agenda. India, one of the fastest growing emitters, is noticeably absent from this deal because its leaders refuse to sacrifice its economic well-being at the altar of climate change.

“Voters sent a clear message in the midterms: enough is enough. Instead of listening to the American people, the president seems intent on distracting the public from the shellacking his policies took at the polls by doubling down on his failed energy and climate agenda. Americans want their elected leaders to focus on jobs and the economy, not a costly climate change agenda.”

###

Filed Under: Blog, Press Releases Tagged With: China, climate, Obama

A Vote for the Wind PTC is a Vote for President Obama’s Climate Agenda

November 12, 2014 by Thomas Pyle 14 Comments

Outgoing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will soon lose his grip on a chamber he dominated for seven years. Before giving up the reins, however, Reid will dictate the Senate’s agenda during the lame duck session. At the top of his to-do list is a tax extenders bill that includes an extension of the wind Production Tax Credit (PTC).

We already explained why Congress should reject any effort to extend the wind PTC during the lame duck session. In short, the PTC is a flawed policy that harms American families and threatens power grid reliability. We also explained how the PTC is integral to President Obama’s climate agenda, the foundation of which is the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) carbon dioxide rules for existing power plants.

A vote by Congress to extend the wind PTC is a vote in favor of the status quo, which the American voters rejected by giving Republicans control of the Senate. Opposing the Obama-Reid energy agenda doesn’t have to wait until the new Congress is sworn in—it can begin by opposing the wind PTC during the lame duck session.

Taking on Obama’s Energy Agenda Now

Incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said a top priority of his is “to try to do whatever I can to get the EPA reined in.” He can take action on this goal even before the new Congress is sworn in by opposing the wind PTC.

In April, the Senate Finance Committee passed a tax extenders package that includes a retroactive extension of the wind PTC, which lapsed at the end of last year. The full Senate has not taken action on the package, though Sen. Reid is intent on passing the extenders during the lame duck.

If soon-to-be Majority Leader McConnell is indeed serious about reining in the EPA, he should start by opposing an extension of the wind PTC in the lame duck session. In fact, rejecting the PTC is just about the only action the Senate can take during the lame duck to “rein in” the EPA.

Don’t “Clear the Decks” if the Decks Include the Wind PTC

The incoming 114^th Congress is eager to show that it can govern. McConnell and his staff have indicated that they want to “clear the decks” for the incoming Congress. House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton said that the election gives Republicans a “chance to govern on energy and environmental policy.”

If Republicans want to be effective in the lame duck session, they must resist attempts to include the wind PTC in a tax extenders package, even if it helps to “clear the decks.” Cutting a deal that includes the PTC would support the agenda that the next Congress is tasked with unraveling.

Republicans should not trade in their values for a clean slate. The American people gave Republicans a majority in the 114^th Congress to push back against Obama’s overreach, including his energy agenda. The new Congress will push to invalidate the EPA’s carbon dioxide regulations under the Congressional Review Act and use the appropriations process to stall the rule. Unfortunately, these efforts will ring hollow if Senate Republicans allow Sen. Reid to revive the wind PTC in the lame duck session.

Conclusion

On October 2, President Obama made sure the American people knew that his policies were on the ballot. He said, “I am not on the ballot this fall. Michelle’s pretty happy about that. But make no mistake: These policies are on the ballot. Every single one of them.” The American people have spoken and they repudiated President Obama’s policies by voting out a large number of Senators and Representatives in President Obama’s party. Opposing the wind PTC is the first step Congress can take toward fulfilling that mandate. Given the strong connections between the PTC and the President’s climate agenda, a vote to extend the PTC is inexcusable.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: climate change agenda, harry reid, lame duck, Mitch McConnell, President Obama, tax extenders, wind production tax credit, wind ptc