Search anytime by typing below

Thanks for joining the AEA efforts to help combat rising energy prices. We don’t want to bug you that often, so let us know what energy issues interest you, and we’ll keep your inbox happy.

*Please fill in all items

In the Pipeline: 4/3/13

April 3, 2013 by Leave a Comment

I don’t always go to protests, but when I do, I make sure to bring my harmonica. Denver Post (4/1/13) reports: “Longmont and Fort Collins have banned the practice. Hickenlooper said Monday that past court rulings suggest cities can’t do that because mineral rights owners have to have reasonable access to recover the minerals for which they own the rights… Three hecklers were ejected from the debate. One left playing a harmonica.”

 

Times have changed. It’s not like the Old Days, when we can do anything we want. A refusal is not the act of a friend. If Vito Nicastri had all the windmills and solar panels, then he must share them, or let others use them. He must let us draw the water from the well. Certainly he can present a bill for such services; after all… we are not Communists. Washington Post (4/3/13) reports: “Italian police have seized a record €1.3 billion ($1.7 billion) in cash and property from a single person, a Sicilian alternative energy entrepreneur alleged to have close ties to the Mafia… Italy’s anti-Mafia investigators said in a statement Wednesday that Vito Nicastri, a 57-year-old native of Alcamo, near Trapani, was placed under surveillance and must remain in Alcamo for three years. He is accused of declaring for tax purposes a fraction of the value of his businesses.”

 

With Bloomberg vs. Buffet as their surrogates, the Sierra Club and BNSF square off over coal exports. Oregon Live (4/2/13) reports: “At the railroad berm that divides Horsethief Lake from the Columbia River, you can stick your hand between the rocks and come up with fistfuls of crumbly coal-black pebbles and dust… For the Sierra Club and other environmental groups, such spots are Exhibit A in their case against coal export from Northwest ports… Today, five environmental groups filed their biggest legal blast so far, warning BNSF Railway and six coal companies that they plan to sue them in 60 days in federal court for violating the Clean Water Act. If successful, the challenge would require coal trains to have water-pollution permits for the first time.”

 

Volts aren’t exactly blowing out the door… AutoBlog (4/2/13) reports: “On the plug-in hybrid side of the first-two-to-market ledger, the Chevrolet Volt had another solid sales month, but nothing earth shattering. Chevy sold 1,478 Volts last month, down a bit from February (1,626) but up from February (1,140). In March 2012, Chevy sold 2,289 Volts, which was a record at the time.”

 

Really, Jeff? The big problem with EPA is that they don’t have enough money? Apparently, Frank needs to do a much, much better job on messaging. E&ENews (4/2/13) reports: “But the air office routinely blows deadlines that are set by law, drawing scowls from friends and foes alike. Industry groups, environmental organizations and government watchdogs complain that the office responds only to legal action by outside groups. Those who track the office attribute its delays, in part, to a perennial lack of funds and personnel… ‘Funding is a chronic problem at EPA,’ said Jeff Holmstead, who led the air office during the George W. Bush administration. ‘They just don’t have enough people to meet all those statutory deadlines.’”

 

Three of the top six are oil and gas companies.  They pay more in taxes than Jimmy Buffett, or Warren Buffett, or WalMart (and their ideological masters at EDF).  Remember this the next time some corrupt, thieving politicians talks about oil and gas “subsidies”. USA Today (3/17/13) reports: “To identify the companies that pay the most taxes, 24/7 Wall St. reviewed corporate tax payments for the top 150 companies by revenue. Included in our analysis were company financials, including income, employee count and earnings before taxes. These were either provided by Capital IQ, or obtained by 24/7 Wall St. reviews of SEC filings or financial statements. All data, including taxes paid, are for 2012, or the most recent complete fiscal year.”

 

It’s a wonder you don’t see more of these out there when the government makes them practically free. Then again, you could find an old horse buggy, dial up internet modem, and typewriter for free somewhere, but you don’t see a lot of those around either. Slate (4/2/13) reports: “One way to get a car is to buy one. Another way is to lease one. But a variety of tax credit programs exist to encourage people to buy electric cars, which is why Tesla Motors has now devised a “revolutionary new finance product” that will let you lease a Model S while reaping the tax benefits of buying one… The way the program works is that you “buy” your Model S with a loan from US Bank or Wells Fargo, putting 10% down (Tesla helpfully notes that “[t]he 10% down payment is covered or more than covered by US Federal and state tax credits ranging from $7,500 to $15,000”), and then after 36 months you have the right to “sell” the Model S back to Tesla “for the same residual value percentage as the iconic Mercedes S Class”. Get it? It’s not a lease. It’s an agreement to buy the car on credit and then sell it back later to the seller at a prearranged depreciation level.”

Filed Under: In the Pipeline Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

In the Pipeline: 4/2/13

April 2, 2013 by Leave a Comment

When you’re not gambling with your own money, Vegas must be tons of fun. Grist (3/28/13) reports: “We find that 90% of hours are covered most cost-effectively by a system that generates from renewables 180% the electrical energy needed by load, and 99.9% of hours are covered by generating almost 290% of need. Only [9 to 72 hours] of storage were required to cover 99.9% of hours of load over four years. So much excess generation of renewables is a new idea, but it is not problematic or inefficient, any more than it is problematic to build a thermal power plant requiring fuel input at 250% of the electrical output, as we do today.”

 

The thing is that renewable portfolio standards don’t “promote” increased generation of electricity from wind and solar and what not. They require consumers to buy it under compulsion of law. Bingaman is a perfect choice for an organization that doesn’t understand the difference. Stanford Law School (4/1/13) reports: “Former U.S. Senator and Stanford Law School alumnus Jeff Bingaman will join the Steyer-Taylor Center for Energy Policy and Finance as a distinguished fellow to develop policies to assist states and local communities in promoting increased use of clean energy. Currently, 29 states plus the District of Columbia have adopted policies to promote increased generation of electricity from renewable energy sources in the form of Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS).”

 

Do these people not know how to talk to each other? Maybe federal agencies should make employees sign up for eharmony or match.com. After all, wind power is very sexy and chic these days. Renewables Biz (3/29/13) reports: “The GAO identified significant duplication among the 82 different federal initiatives subsidizing wind energy. Despite this duplication, the administration wants to expand federal spending even further. We should eliminate duplication, not throw more money at overlapping initiatives. We should also redirect efforts toward research that will help renewable energy companies compete without taxpayer subsidies.”

 

Thank God! Now he can speak freely after being muzzled by three different Administrations. What do you want to bet no one wants to hear him? NYTimes (4/1/13) reports: “James E. Hansen, the climate scientist who issued the clearest warning of the 20th century about the dangers of global warming, will retire from NASA this week, giving himself more freedom to pursue political and legal efforts to limit greenhouse gases.”

 

Yes, the media has cooled on global warming, and so has the earth. Even James Hansen has noted the “pause” in global warming. Media Matters (3/30/13) reports: “Twelve. That’s the combined number of segments that ABC, CBS and NBC’s nightly news programs devoted to climate change throughout all of 2012. This is woefully inadequate. We need coverage that’s consistent with the importance of dealing with this issue… That’s why we and the Sierra Club are joining the League of Conservation Voters in asking those three nightly news programs to do a better job covering climate issues in 2013 than they did in 2012.”

 

This is a little complicated, so let me boil it down. The media got all excited over a new study that they said showed the warming over the last hundred years has been really spectacular. Only one problem. The guy who actually wrote the study specifically said that the data he had for the last 100 years was pretty close to worthless (statistically speaking). So, as my friend Robert Plant likes to point out, the song remains the same. Global Warming Policy Foundation (4/1/13) reports: “Roger Pielke Jr documents the gross misrepresentation of the findings of a recent scientific paper via press release which appears to skirt awfully close to crossing the line into research misconduct.”

 

A new, and ridiculous way into the carbon tax discussion…Washington Post (3/30/13) reports: “CONSUMERS AREN’T paying nearly enough for their energy, and that’s a massive problem for the planet.”

Filed Under: In the Pipeline Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

If You Watch Baseball, You Support Oil and Natural Gas

April 1, 2013 by Leave a Comment

America’s game is brought to you by oil and natural gas.

FossilFuels_infographic_baseball_20120501_v3_72dpiweb

Filed Under: Infographics

In the Pipeline: 4/1/13

April 1, 2013 by Leave a Comment

Freedom of expression is now freedom of coercion. Sierra Club(3/31/13) reports: “As the effects of climate change cause hardship for families across America, we need better coverage if we want people to connect the dots and demand real action to curb global warming pollution… That’s why we’re launching a petition to the executive producers of ABC, CBS, and NBC’s evening news programs, demanding more — and better — news coverage on climate change this year. Will you add your name to help us reach 60,000 signatures in the next two weeks?”

 

Shocker. Who could have foreseen that all of this would be a disaster? I mean, except for the morons who are trying to run the country. National Legal and Policy Center (3/28/13) reports: “Those interviewed cited predictable reasons for their regret, hesitance or refusal to accept government funding, including bureaucratic red tape, reporting requirements, uncertainty about credit subsidy costs, lengthy review times, and the expenditure of time and resources for an uncertain outcome. But now – with the benefit of hindsight of so many that went before them into the tortured realm of government dependency – apparently many have been deterred by bad publicity surrounding previous loans.”

 

Fisker possibly going bankrupt… Is it wrong to say it’s karma?Reuters (3/28/13) reports: “Fisker Automotive, the green-car company that has not built a car since July, has hired law firm Kirkland & Ellis to advise it on a possible bankruptcy filing, a person close to the matter said on Thursday.”

 

I am a little unclear. Who decides who might be “undesirable”? Because in the past people like Charlie Crist have been desirable while people like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz have been undesirable. Washington Post (3/30/13) reports: “NRSC officials say they are also taking a new approach to contested primaries… In 2010, the committee endorsed preferred candidates, only to see five of them defeated. In 2012, the NRSC chose to make no endorsements and provided only behind-the-scenes guidance to its preferred candidates… This time, the committee intends to stay neutral unless a particularly undesirable nominee begins to emerge. In addition, if Democratic groups wade into GOP primaries to help a candidate they deem weaker and easier to beat, the NRSC promises to fight back.”

 

For instance, after his horrible plan to raise energy taxes on consumers and families, which is a disaster for the Commonwealth and gave cover to collectivists like Governor O’Malley, I think that Governor Bob McDonnell (Bishop Ireton, Class of ’74) is undesirable. Very undesirable. Washington Post (3/29/13) reports: “Under the bill, which passed the Senate 27 to 20, motorists can expect to pay between 13 and 20 cents more per gallon by mid-2016, according to legislative analysts. The increase would be phased in, with the first bump of about 4 cents a gallon coming in July… The vote came just a month after a transportation plan was approved in Virginia, a state led by a Republican governor that competes for jobs in a region with some of the nation’s worst traffic congestion… The two plans share some features, including a new wholesale tax on gas that is intended to keep pace with the price of fuel… In an interview, O’Malley acknowledged that higher gas taxes would not be politically popular: “It’s not the kind of stuff people throw you bouquets for.” But he argued that funding more projects would create jobs and that the action was long overdue. He credited passage in Virginia for stiffening the spines of some lawmakers in Maryland.”

 

So if you start with global cooling, switch to global warming, rebrand as climate change, and then start beating your chest to climate disruption, does that mean we’ve come full circle? Or are there a few more PR tricks left in the bag? Powerline (3/29/13) reports: “The article then went on to survey emerging research (U.S. government funded!) casting doubt on high estimates of climate sensitivity, along with alternative explanations on some climate factors, such as “black carbon.”  The question in my mind at the time was how long this would take to begin to break out into the “mainstream” scientific and media world… That day appears to have arrived.  The new issue of The Economist has a long feature on the declining confidence in the high estimates of climate sensitivity.  That this appears in The Economist is significant, because this august British news organ has been fully on board with climate alarmism for years now.  A Washington-based Economist correspondent admitted to me privately several years ago that the senior editors in London had mandated consistent and regular alarmist climate coverage in its pages.”

 

We’re guessing the Obama administration is spinning this E15 thing as the knight in shining armor for emissions reductions. But the joke is on us – ethanol is a less efficient fuel than gasoline and is more damaging to the environment when you factor in its production. But hey, at least ethanol mandates aren’t bad for poor people and food prices, right? Energy Guardian (4/1/13) reports: “The Obama administration’s new proposal to reduce sulfur in gasoline has the oil industry concerned about refinery costs, but that’s not the only challenge it has to overcome in the draft rule… The Environmental Protection Agency also proposed moving to 15 percent ethanol blends as its test gasoline for emissions tests, a clear rejection of the oil industry’s public effort to stop the E15 blends and the Renewable Fuel Standard.”

Filed Under: In the Pipeline Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , ,

New Study on the Impact of RFS Implies There Is No Need for the RFS

March 29, 2013 by Leave a Comment

 

Earlier this week, the Renewable Fuels Association released a report arguing that the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) is only slightly raising gasoline prices. The implication of the report is clear—there is no need for RFS. If the RFS has positive benefits, as the report claims, or only slight costs, then there is no need for Congress to mandate the use of billions of gallons of ethanol a year.

With gasoline prices spiking recently, the ethanol fuel industry, through its promotion of the RFS, has been criticized as one of the drivers of the increase. To comply with the RFS, refiners are forced to blend 13.8 billion gallons of ethanol in gasoline this year or they have to buy ethanol RIN (Renewable Identification Numbers) credits. The price of a RIN shot up from about seven cents at the start of the year to over a $1 by early March. Economic theory suggests that in the long run these additional costs will lead to higher gasoline prices. The Wall Street Journal, for example, stated that “the price of gas would quickly fall by about five to 10 cents a gallon” without the RFS.

To combat these arguments, the Renewable Fuels Association, the lobbying group for the ethanol producers, commissioned a study by Informa Economics to look at the price impacts of the RFS. The Informa study found that, “The direct effect on retail gasoline prices associated with elevated RIN costs is only $0.004 per gallon” and “the net benefit to consumers from the usage of ethanol is $0.04 per gallon of gasoline in the reference case and $0.02 per gallon in the high case.”

For sake of argument, let’s assume that they are right and the RFS actually produces net benefits. If blending billions of gallons of ethanol in gasoline leads to net benefits, then there is no reason to keep the RFS. If Informa’s numbers are correct, then refiners would gladly blend billions of gallons of ethanol in gasoline every year because it would save them money.

The fact that the RFS exists suggests the renewable fuels lobby doesn’t actually believe that it can compete in a free market, which implies that the benefits in this recent study are illusory.

Another issue with the study is that it fails to account for the fact that a gallon of gasoline has 47 percent more energy content than a gallon of ethanol (a gallon of ethanol has 76,100 BTUs, while a gallon of reformulated gasoline has 111,836 BTUs). This makes gallon to gallon comparisons between ethanol and gasoline misleading without correcting for the difference in energy content.

Nevertheless, the Renewable Fuels Association makes the comparison without correcting for energy content. For example, the study states, “Thus far in 2013, ethanol prices have on average been $0.44 per gallon below wholesale gasoline prices, which translates to a gross benefit of $0.04 per gallon of finished motor gasoline supplied to consumers.”

One reason that a gallon of ethanol costs less than a gallon of gasoline is because it contains significantly less energy. Energy content per gallon is a very important characteristic of fuel. After all, the entire point of using gasoline is that it provides energy for our cars.

Another issue the study avoids is the additional costs of transporting and blending billions of gallons of ethanol in gasoline. The study seems to assume that it’s either costless to blend ethanol with gasoline or that the costs of handling ethanol are the same as gasoline. Both are incorrect.

Ethanol is alcohol—a solvent. It can corrode pipes as well as become contaminated by water. To transport ethanol by pipeline, special additives have to be used and the ethanol can become contaminated with water, damaging the fuel. This is why most ethanol is not transported by pipeline. The first ethanol pipeline entered service in 2008, while the first petroleum pipeline was built in the 1860s. Because ethanol is more difficult to transport than petroleum products, the use of ethanol is more expensive than petroleum products.

While we can debate the methodology used to assess the impact of the ethanol mandate, the study implies something far more important—there is no need for the Renewable Fuel Standard. If the Renewable Fuel industry wants to argue that its product results in lower gasoline price, then there is no need for the RFS to mandate the use of billions of gallons of year. If using this much ethanol is beneficial to refiners and gasoline buyers, people will use it regardless of government mandates.

Filed Under: Facts, News, Products and Power, Renewable Fuel Standard Tagged With: , , , ,

In the Pipeline: 3/29/13

March 29, 2013 by Leave a Comment

We had to recheck the calendar to make sure it wasn’t April 1st.Washington Free Beacon (3/28/13) reports: “After bankruptcy, a buyout by a Chinese firm, and more than a hundred million dollars in taxpayer money, the lithium-ion battery maker A123 Systems, Inc., is getting a new name: B456 Systems, Inc… A123, which produces batteries used in electric cars, has changed its name to B456, the company announced Thursday in a regulatory filing.”

 

What’s the price of gasoline in California, again? Only 38.9 cents higher than the national average. But hey, at least the car companies can have a uniform standard. The White House (3/22/13) presents:

 

 

As we have noted before, Senator Blunt did a great job. So did Downey. And so did Neil Chatterjee, who kept the whole thing between the ditches and moving forward. WSJ (3/28/13) reports: “Proposals for that hardy Al Gore perennial, a carbon tax, are making a comeback. But if last weekend’s votes in the Senate are any guide, the idea is going to require a lot more political persuasion… The media ignored Harry Reid’s budget vote-a-rama, but along the way Senators were allowed to declare on a pair of amendments related to energy taxes. First up was Rhode Island liberal Sheldon Whitehouse, who wanted to reserve any carbon-tax revenues to reduce the deficit or redistribute to certain voters. Apparently Mr. Whitehouse sees a carbon levy as inevitable and wants to make sure he’s the middleman.”

 

It is pretty cool that the earth is a massive repository of organic compounds that we can use to make life somewhat enjoyable and interesting as we cruise through space on what is otherwise just a tiny speck of dust in the universe. But it’s also pretty cool that as our use of these organic compounds (oil, gas, coal) has increased, so has our ability to care for the environment. The bad guys think life is a zero-sum game. They are wrong. Think Progress (3/21/13) reports: “The planet we live on is valuable only as a repository for natural resources, according to Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX). Stockman, a lawmaker best known for bringing Ted Nugent to the State of the Union and opposing the Violence Against Women Act because it protected “change-gender” individuals, went on an extended Twitter rant Thursday afternoon accusing environmentalists of hating science.”

The following think tank chiefs are opposed to a carbon tax. Please contact us at [email protected] if you wish to join our growing ranks. We are thinking about starting a new list – trade association heads. We fear, however, it will be pretty small.

Tom Pyle, American Energy Alliance / Institute for Energy Research
Myron Ebell, Freedom Action
Phil Kerpen, American Commitment
William O’Keefe, George C. Marshall Institute
Lawson Bader, Competitive Enterprise Institute
Andrew Quinlan, Center for Freedom and Prosperity
Tim Phillips, Americans for Prosperity
Joe Bast, Heartland Institute
David Ridenour, National Center for Public Policy Research
Michael Needham, Heritage Action for America
Tom Schatz, Citizens Against Government Waste
Grover Norquist, Americans for Tax Reform
Sabrina Schaeffer, Independent Women’s Forum
Barrett E. Kidner, Caesar Rodney Institute
George Landrith, Frontiers of Freedom
Thomas A. Schatz, Citizens Against Government Waste
Bill Wilson, Americans for Limited Government
Wayne Brough, FreedomWorks
Rich Collins, Positive Growth Alliance

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

The Boom in the Bakken Continues

March 27, 2013 by Leave a Comment

The new era in American energy being brought on innovative hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling technologies has made, North Dakota, the poster child of the domestic energy boom.  In 2012, North Dakota was the second largest oil producer, boasting the nation’s lowest unemployment rate at 3.6%. North Dakota’s emergence as an energy giant is a beacon on the hill during our nation’s tough economic times and should be used as an example for other states with vast oil and natural gas shale plays. The development of these vast resources is key to America’s economic recovery and job creation, with the result that every state benefits.

Because of this increase in production and demand, two new refineries are being built in North Dakota. The Dakota Prairie refinery broke ground this week and should be completed in 20 months with a capacity of 20,000 barrels per day. The Trenton Diesel Refinery is also planned for construction in the near future. These new refineries will supply much-need fuels to the growing North Dakota population and the critical industries that support the state’s energy developers.

Doubtlessly, North Dakota’s energy renaissance is benefitting the entire country by providing Americans with affordable, domestic energy and good-paying jobs. Accessing and utilizing our nation’s vast energy resources will lead to increased tax revenue, decrease our imports from the Middle East, and create American jobs. With our national economy still sputtering along, we should be developing as much affordable energy as we can here at home. The great state of North Dakota is an American success story and is an example all other states should try to replicate.

Filed Under: News, Products and Power Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

Senator Whitehouse’s Duplicitous Carbon Tax Amendment

March 26, 2013 by Leave a Comment

Last weekend the Senate rejected an amendment to the FY 2014 budget that would have enacted a carbon tax. For those interested in affordable energy and job creation, this was a good thing. Still, it’s worth walking through the actual wording of Senator Whitehouse’s amendment to see just how duplicitous it was. Even if someone knew nothing of the climate policy debate, the rhetorical sleight of hand in Whitehouse’s proposal should raise alarm bells.

A Tax By Any Other Name Would Hurt the Economy Just as Badly

An LA Times story on the vote shows just how slippery Whitehouse’s description is: “Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a liberal Rhode Island Democrat, offered an amendment to the proposed fiscal 2014 budget resolution calling for ‘establishment of a fee on carbon pollution.’”

This is the same euphemism that Senators Boxer and Sanders used. Let’s be clear: A “fee on carbon pollution” means that the federal government is going to tax Americans for using energy in its most economical forms. If the IRS started calling it a “fee on worker exertion,” it would still be a payroll tax.

There are many economists and other analysts who think that a carbon tax makes sense. If so, legislators should openly state what they want to do. They want to tax carbon emissions? Fine, let them explain their intentions to the voters and see what happens. But to frame it as “a fee on carbon pollution” is loading the deck.

When Everything Is Allowed, Nothing Is Forbidden

Yet the “fee” euphemism is hardly the worst of it. The LA Times story continues:

The amendment didn’t suggest who’d pay the fee or how large it would be; it required only that the fee not increase the deficit and that all the revenue raised be “returned to the American people in the form of federal deficit reduction, reduced federal tax rates, cost savings or other direct benefits.”

That’s such a wide set of options, it left room for the Senate to consider all of the carbon-tax proposals that have been floated. Some would use the revenue to narrow the federal budget gap; others would lower corporate and personal tax rates. Still others, such as the one favored by the Citizens Climate Lobby, would divvy up the money among consumers and businesses in the form of rebates, effectively shifting dollars from the most intensive carbon emitters to the least.

The article here understates the emptiness of these “constraints.” Not only did Whitehouse’s amendment allow “all of the carbon-tax proposals that have been floated”; it would be difficult to imagine a carbon tax proposal that would not qualify. No matter what the government did with carbon tax receipts, they could always classify it in one of the permissible categories.

Consider: (1) If the government doesn’t spend any new money or change other taxes, then the carbon tax revenues would be used for deficit reduction. Check.

(2) The government could use the money to reduce other taxes. Check.

(3) The government could spend the money. So long as the money were construed as offering “direct benefits” to Americans, this option too is allowed. Check.

Indeed, unless someone proposed using carbon tax revenues to drown adorable kittens, it is hard to come up with anything even in principle that Whitehouse’s amendment would prevent. And yet, he obviously put in that language to make it appear as if he were protecting the American public from getting hit with a massive new tax hike for no good reason.

He did not even deign to offer guidance on how much the tax would be, apparently leaving that up to someone else.  Would it be a tiny fee or a huge fee?  The Senator offers no clue. It is probably a good thing the Senator is not in the House of Representatives, where under the Constitution, all revenue bills must begin.

Conclusion

The various proposals for a new carbon tax will bring in potentially trillions of dollars in new revenue in the coming decades. As I spell out in this study, it is incredibly naïve to think that this measure would be used to promote economic efficiency, even if one endorses the standard “negative externality” argument about carbon emissions.

If there remains any doubt on this point—if anybody thinks policymakers are actually going to craft a policy that uses new carbon revenues in order to shrink the rest of the government and deliver net benefits to Americans—then go re-read Senator Whitehouse’s duplicitous amendment. It may have been defeated this time around, but the proponents of a carbon tax keep coming back for more.

Filed Under: Emissions Standards, Facts, News, Products and Power, Threats Tagged With: , , , ,

In the Pipeline: 3/26/13

March 26, 2013 by Leave a Comment

It’s not enough to help us sleep at night, but at least 53 Senators disagree with His Majesty’s newest court jester. Washington Examiner (3/25/13) reports: “President Obama’s Energy secretary nominee regards a carbon tax as one of the simplest ways to move the energy industry towards clean technologies, though he notes that government would have to come up with a plan to mitigate the burden this tax places on poor people, who would pay the most.”

 

It would be great if the House Republicans could follow up on Senator Blunt’s – and Downey Palmer’s – good showing. Politico(3/25/13) reports: “More than a dozen Senate Democrats have a message for President Barack Obama: If he wants to take dramatic action on climate change, he’s on his own… The latest evidence came from this weekend’s marathon series of budget votes, in which moderate and conservative Democrats sided with the GOP on the Keystone XL oil pipeline and against any prospects for a tax on carbon.”

 

Why can’t this Kessler dude just be happy that the pipeline will provide net benefits to the environment? It seems like the entire “environmental” movement is just well-branded masochism.Bloomberg (3/25/13) reports: “‘The Senate spoke with a clear voice on the Keystone XL pipeline,’ Benjamin Cole, a spokesman for American for Energy Alliance, a Washington-based group that supports fossil fuel development, said in an e-mailed statement. ‘It is telling that the amendment garnered such overwhelming and new support from across the political spectrum.’… Environmental groups urged senators to reject the amendment, sponsored by North Dakota Republican John Hoeven. Representatives from 350.org met with aides for Democratic Senators Michael Bennet of Colorado and Mark Warner of Virginia, among others, prior to the vote, Kessler said. Both men backed the amendment… ‘It’s impossible for a U.S. senator to say they’re for action on climate change and support the pipeline,’ Kessler said. ‘It’s like saying you’re against obesity and then putting soft drinks in every school.’”

 

Maybe we’ll get a fresh start with energy policy over here in the original colonies if a bunch of Brits get wise and decide to go their own way. The Telegraph (3/23/13) reports: “With the worst snow conditions in the country since 1981, it’s worrying, to say the least, that gas supplies are running low. A month ago, The Sunday Telegraph warned in this column of the problems of an energy policy that puts expensive, inefficient green power before coal-fired and nuclear power. There have been a few signs that the Coalition is at last turning its attentions to the issue but, still, not nearly enough has been done. Now we are reaping the consequences. Because of a misguided faith in green energy, we have left ourselves far too dependent on foreign gas supplies, largely provided by Russian and Middle Eastern producers. Only 45 per cent of our gas consumption comes from domestic sources. All it takes is a spell of bad weather, and the closure of a gas pipeline from Belgium, to leave us dangerously exposed, and to send gas prices soaring. Talk of rationing may be exaggerated, but our energy policy is failing to deal with Britain’s fundamental incapacity to produce our own power.”

 

Apparently the food critic was overqualified. Huffington Post (3/20/13) reports: “But in addition to Eilperin covering climate and environmental policy issues as part of her White House reporting job, the Post’s Lenny Bernstein is moving from the Sports desk to the National staff to take over as environmental reporter. Bernstein has covered several beats at the paper over the years and most recently edited “one of the Post’s most important franchises” — the Redskins.”

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

In the Pipeline: 3/25/13

March 25, 2013 by Leave a Comment

Show me the Moniz. ProPublica (3/20/13) reports: “When President Obama nominated Ernest Moniz to be energy secretary earlier this month, he hailed the nuclear physicist as a “brilliant scientist” who, among his many talents, had effectively brought together “prominent thinkers and energy companies” in the continuing effort to figure out a safe and economically sound energy future for the country… ‘His connections to the fossil fuel and nuclear power industries threaten to undermine the focus we need to see on renewables and energy efficiency,’ said Tyson Slocum, director of the energy program at the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen.”

 

Next up, fines for heating your home and breathing. Fox NY (3/21/13) reports: “Businesses in Paramus, New Jersey are getting tickets when they leave their sign lights on… Paramus has a quality of life ordinance that fines businesses $200 or more, plus $33 in court costs, if their signs don’t go dark after 11 p.m.”

 

It is a sad day for Canada when Al Gore is more of a man than the Premier of Alberta. Calgary Herald (3/20/13) reports: “Under fire from the opposition parties over carbon tax comments, Premier Alison Redford said Tuesday she is not calling for a national carbon levy… Redford told Postmedia News on Monday the federal government should follow Alberta’s lead in establishing a $15-per-tonne levy on large industrial emitters that are unable to meet their greenhouse gas reduction targets.”

 

When it’s all bread and circuses, there’s no time or need to care about real science. American Spectator (3/22/13) reports: “The fact remains that because American industry is greatly improving its environmental practices and is proactively addressing all the “big problems,” there’s only one way for the EPA to stay relevant: find little “problems” — even tiny, infinitesimal ones — and inflate them into issues of tremendous importance. Combine the poorly understood concept of risk, a technically ignorant mainstream media, and a public that has been conditioned to equate the word “chemical” with “deadly poison” and you have the ideal conditions to do just that. And if that kind of approach to environmental management sounds as if it will require the services of a public relations firm rather than a team of scientists, no matter. The environmental movement has been comfortable working in this manner for decades.”

 

It was a busy week last week. Lots of collectivists were busy. Al Gore (3/21/13) reports: “Taxes are always a regrettable necessity, but some are less regrettable than others. A tax that strengthens energy security and cuts pollution, while minimising the damage done to employment and investment, is one of the least regrettable of all… Yet a carbon tax, which has all those characteristics, is struggling to find support from the US administration or in Congress. It deserves much wider enthusiasm.”

 

I will only point out that at CPAC a bunch of kids who said they were associated with Arthur Laffer were passing out “Conservatives for a Carbon Tax” stickers. So, apparently, there is still a need for the kind of education George is providing here. Frontiers of Freedom (3/20/13) reports: “It is not surprising that there are liberals in Washington proposing new stealth carbon taxes. What is surprising is that a few ‘conservatives’ support the idea. Even more inexplicable is the fact that some have called the carbon tax a ‘once in a generation opportunity.’… Let me see if I’ve got this right. A huge, gargantuan tax increase — one that would make everything cost more — is a ‘once in a generation opportunity?’”

 

Now that’s gratitude for you… Bloomberg (3/21/13) reports: “NextEra Energy, the largest U.S. wind-power operator, sued 16 banks yesterday in Manhattan federal court, asking a judge to interpret a 2011 credit “guarantee agreement” in light of recent changes in Spanish law… NextEra said Spain enacted favorable tariff laws in the 1990s to encourage investment in solar power so that by 2008, the country accounted for more than 40 percent of the world’s solar installations.”

 

What does wind power have to do with chicken you-know-what? Neither is helping North Carolinians. News Observer (3/23/13) reports: “Meanwhile, electricity generated by wind as well as poultry and swine waste have made almost no progress here despite being eligible for the same subsidies that are available for solar power. Those renewables continue to face significant economic and technological obstacles.”

 

With all the mayhem of St. Valentine’s Day, we missed this last month. But it should be required reading across the land. Ben Zycher takes Congressman Waxman and Senator Whitehouse to school. AEI (2/14/13) reports: “Whatever the actual magnitude of the prospective effects of changes in ambient concentrations of GHG, what is not in dispute is the international nature of those anthropogenic impacts. The policy inquiry in your letter is limited specifically to actions and legislation at the federal level. U.S. emissions of GHG are about 18 percent of global emissions, a proportion that is declining steadily. [3] If we ignore that ongoing decline in the U.S. proportion, the U.S. would contribute about 0.5 degrees of the IPCC best estimate of 3 degrees. Suppose that U.S. policies over time reduce our contribution by half, an outcome that could be achieved only in the face of massive economic dislocation.  In that case, the reduction in the U.S. contribution would be about 0.2-0.3 degrees, a change that no climate model predicts would yield measurable effects in terms of climate patterns and attendant impacts upon weather and other parameters.”

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Previous
Next