News - American Energy Alliance

In the Pipeline: 11/13/12

November 13, 2012 by AEA 5 Comments

Join The Hill and AEA for breakfast tomorrow at the Hyatt Regency for a discussion on the fate of the Wind PTC. RSVP here.

IER STUDY: CARBON TAX PLAGUED BY THEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL PROBLEMS. IER (11/13/12) reports: “The Institute for Energy Research released today a new study exposing the fallacies of so-called revenue-neutral carbon tax swaps, an idea that has gained some support among even conservative pundits and politicians despite numerous theoretical and practical problems with the scheme. IER Senior Economist Robert P. Murphy reveals in the study, entitled “Carbon ‘Tax Swap’ Deals: A Review and Critique,” that pro-carbon tax discussions currently underway inside Washington may offer a ‘cure worse than the disease,’ robbing global economies of growth potential and disproportionately affecting the world’s poor.”

Yes, if only Mitt had come out for the carbon tax, the professional elites vote would have shown up in droves. This guy should go have a beer with Bob Shrum and compare notes. Nuclear Townhall (11/1/12) reports: “Three weeks before the election I submitted a story to my journalistic home, The American Spectator, arguing that Mitt Romney should support a carbon tax. I argued that it would solidify his support with the professional elites in Virginia, North Carolina and Ohio that were concerned about the economy but put off by the social conservatism of the Republican Party.”

How much longer do we have to listen to this? Malthus was wrong. Ehrlich was wrong. Holdren was wrong. The Club of Rome was wrong. And now this dude is wrong. Say it with me – rich societies are environmentally responsible societies. E&ENews (11/8/12) reports: “Western societies — and, increasingly, much of the rest of the world — tend to place far more value on the economy than the environment, he said. That philosophy, he said, could lead humanity to an untimely end… “We’ve come to a place where we have to decide whether our species will live into the next century.”

It’s Dan Kish’s world. The rest of us just live in it. E&ENews (11/9/12) reports: “This is very disturbing,” Kish said. “Coloradans may not be able to get jobs that may have been available from oil shale development, thanks to Salazar. But because of the vote this week, maybe they’ll be able to sit around and smoke weed.”

Frontier fuels for the future: “Alaska ice tested as possible new energy source”. USAToday (11/11/12) reports: “A half mile below the ground at Prudhoe Bay, above the vast oil field that helped trigger construction of the trans-Alaska pipeline, a drill rig has tapped what might one day be the next big energy source… The Department of Energy and industry partners over two winters drilled into a reservoir of methane hydrate, which looks like ice but burns like a candle if a match warms its molecules.”

David Vitter is going to be a great ranking member on EPW. Senator Vitter(11/9/12) reports: “U.S. Sens. David Vitter (R-La.) and Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) today sent a letter to U.S. Department of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar asking him to explain the administration’s economic reasoning in allowing an offshore lease sale for wind energy in the Atlantic Ocean. The senators’ letter notes that that the agency will not allow offshore oil and gas leasing in the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), and requests data on the economics of the wind lease sale, to compare with “the value of a similar lease for oil and gas on equivalent acreage.””

Well now, we are supposed to believe it when his staff says it now, even though the explanation itself allows for the interpretation that misdirection is part of the Senator’s toolbox. The Hill (11/9/12) reports: “Advocates of taxing carbon emissions shouldn’t look to Sen.-elect Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) as an ally, despite the congressman’s past introduction of carbon tax legislation.”

Which do you figure more people are going to want, solar panels on the roof, or a standby generator in the backyard? NYTimes (11/10/12) reports: “It’s all part of what you might call the Mad Max Economy, a multibillion-dollar-a-year collection of industries that thrive when things get really, really bad. Weather radios, kerosene heaters, D batteries, candles, industrial fans for drying soggy homes — all are scarce and coveted in the gloomy aftermath of Hurricane Sandy and her ilk.”

Of course the White House won’t propose a carbon tax. They need a Republican to propose it. I predict that some dim-witted moderate is going to accommodate them. The Hill (11/9/12) reports: “President Obama has no plans to propose a tax on carbon emissions, a White House official said… “The Administration has not proposed nor is planning to propose a carbon tax,” the official said.”

Grover, just butch it up and oppose this lousy idea directly. This word-smithing is giving us all headaches. National Journal (11/12/12) reports: “But Norquist made clear he himself doesn’t like the policy. “It would infuriate taxpayers,” he said. He also opined that politically, it’s beyond a long shot. While supporters might now be talking about how to structure the tax swap in such a way that it could win political support, “It’s a conversation about what color unicorn you’d like,” Norquist said. “If the Democrats thought it was a good idea and the country wouldn’t hate them for it they would have done it in 2009,” when their party held majorities in both chambers of Congress, he said.”

So, despite all the talk about climate change, even the EU has decided that it is more important to keep rich Americans happy. BusinessWeek(11/12/12) reports: “The European Commission on Monday proposed freezing the imposition of carbon emission charges on non-EU flights for a year, a move that could prevent an international airline dispute from turning into a global trade war.”

Where is Kanye West when you need him? Reuters (11/8/12) reports: “Damage from Superstorm Sandy to the electricity system in the U.S. Northeast exposed deep flaws in the structure and regulation of power utilities that will require a complete redesign, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo said on Thursday… But at least some members of one utility oversight panel later fired back, saying it was the governor who should take responsibility.”

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: carbon tax, department of energy, oil shale, Regulation, utilities, wind ptc

In the Pipeline: 11/9/12

November 9, 2012 by AEA Leave a Comment

Dear Incoming Science Committee Chairman: Listen to Ralph Hall. His is a wise man. The Hill (11/1/12) reports: “The scientific enterprise at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is broken, contrary to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson’s assertions that “science is the backbone of everything we do at EPA,” or that major regulations are based on the recommendations of EPA’s “independent” science advisors. As Americans face a fragile economy and skyrocketing energy prices fueled by President Obama’s agenda, it is important to pull back the curtain on the ideologically-driven processes EPA is using to justify an avalanche of costly rules.”

“Suddenly”? “Suddenly”? Treasury has been talking about this for years. We’ve been talking about it for months. AEI has planned for it over the course of five secret meetings. The only people not paying attention are the wizards who staff the Congress. Reuters (11/8/12) reports: “Long-shot carbon tax suddenly part of fiscal cliff debate… A potential tax on big polluters, a taboo subject in the United States in recent years, has come back into the spotlight as some sense potential for a revenue windfall at a time lawmakers look for ways to the so-called “fiscal cliff” of tax rises and spending cuts due in early 2013.”

Meanwhile, in the real world… WSJ (11/8/12) reports: “America’s oil boom is pumping up exports and driving down the trade deficit… The U.S. trade gap narrowed by $2.3 billion in September, to $41.5 billion, the Commerce Department said Thursday. Oil accounted for more than three quarters of the change, with a $2.2 billion surge in oil exports easily offsetting a small increase in imports.”

This is a bold-faced admission by the greenies that mandated and subsidized renewables are bad for the economy. Otherwise, wouldn’t they be talking about how ‘investments’ in green energy could pull us back from the edge of the fiscal cliff? Energy Guardian (11/9/12) reports: “Urgent discussions about averting the cliff, shorthand for the automatic spending and tax cuts on Jan. 1, have renewable energy groups wondering if they should act now to press for more government support of green energy, beyond extension of the wind Production Tax Credit.”

I have no clue what this means. Maybe our friend Loren Smith can figure it out; he is wicked smart. Washington Examiner (11/7/12) reports: “How, then, should we address climate change? Adaptation is probably a better strategy than prevention. Large-scale, top-down solutions are unlikely to work, so the best way to proceed might be to recognize some of the key insights of 2009 Nobel laureate Elinor Ostrom. Her work focused on how “bottom-up” solutions to resource management problems evolve. To translate it into the language of a bumper sticker you might have seen, “Think globally, act locally.” Let’s look for ways to devolve authority and to develop markets for goods and for risks that are not currently priced. Let’s trust the initiative of innovative economic, social and cultural entrepreneurs rather than politicians.”

We are informally keeping track of which think tank chiefs are opposed to a carbon tax. The list to date follows. If your guy is not on the list, it is because he either favors a carbon tax, wants to retain the option of favoring a carbon tax at some point in the future, or has yet to contact us.

Tom Pyle, American Energy Alliance / Institute for Energy Research
Myron Ebell, Freedom Action
Phil Kerpen, American Committment
Fred Smith, 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

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: carbon tax, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, fiscal cliff, oil, renewables

In the Pipeline: 11/7/12

November 7, 2012 by AEA Leave a Comment

We wonder if President Obama has any sense of how difficult (or impossible) it is to simultaneously destroy affordable energy and grow an economy. Fox Business (11/7/12) reports: “Energy companies likely will see more regulation in President Barack Obama’s second term, with less access to federal lands and water even as the administration promotes energy independence.”

It’s really just sad to see these guys fighting for policies that actually do more harm to the environment. Kind of takes the fun out of the fight. The Hill (11/7/12) reports: “Environmentalists are planning a demonstration on Nov. 18 to put fresh pressure on President Obama, the projected winner of a second term, to reject the proposed Keystone XL oil sands pipeline.”

Crying over YouTube videos to distract people from the truth? Sounds like something else that happened recently. Washington Times (11/6/12) reports: “This isn’t the first time Mr. Mann has turned to the judiciary to silence critics. In 2010, Minnesotans for Global Warming produced a viral YouTube video entitled “Hide the Decline.” Over 600,000 people viewed the animated likeness of Mr. Mann singing lines such as, “Michael Mann thinks he’s so smart, totally inventing the hockey stick chart.” The popular video was pulled after the group received a cease-and-desist letter. “My first reaction was, ‘Wow, I guess I hit a nerve,’” Elmer Beauregard, the video’s creator, told The Washington Times.”

Does anyone else see the irony here? Detroit News (11/6/12) reports: “Michigan voters pulled the plug on a proposed constitutional amendment that would have required Michigan’s utilities to provide 25 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2025.”

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: Keystone XL pipeline, Obama, Regulation, renewable energy

In the Pipeline: 11/6/12

November 6, 2012 by AEA Leave a Comment

The battle has ended, but the war is far from over. AEA (11/5/12) reports: “The American Energy Alliance will conclude its three-month “American Products. American Power.” bus tour today by delivering 14,444 petitions to lawmakers and regulators in Washington. The 18,000 mile, 17 state bus tour connected with thousands of Americans at over 50 events. The message of these concerned citizens is clear: this country needs policies that treat our reliable and affordable energy resources as assets, not liabilities. In a letter sent to the leaders in Washington, AEA President Thomas Pyle had the following to say:”

Speaking of which, this family has something to say about the war on coal:

Seriously? Ray LaHood was a lousy Congressman and has been worse as Secretary of DOT. Here’s another news flash: he is not really that “well-liked”. E&ENews (11/5/12) reports: “I’m afraid if Romney wins, he’ll stop all of that new stuff that’s been under way and switch it all back, and we’ll be right back putting all the money into more roads and drilling oil everywhere, and not at all planning for the big changes that we have to do. And it will actually set the nation back quite a bit,” said Andy Kunz, president of the U.S. High Speed Rail Association.”

Interesting. John Hanger (10/11/12) reports: “Natural Gas Generation Projected By EIA To Decline 10% But Coal To Rise 7% In 2013… With gas prices rising, 2013 will see rising coal generation and coal recapturing some of its lost market share. 2013 will also end a run of annually increasing gas-fired electricity generation and will be the first year since 2008 that America will get less of its electricity from natural gas than in the year before.”

Well now, I wonder how this is all going to turn out. Daily Caller (11/3/12) reports: “I’ve previously noted that conservatives worry Romney transition chief Mike Leavitt will pack a future Romney administration with moderates and personal loyalists — and Connaughton is a prime example of the kind of appointment conservatives would attempt to derail. Of course, blocking Romney (and Leavitt’s) more moderate picks won’t prove easy. At the upper echelons of the Republican world lies an incestuous network. Consider this: Romney consultant Ron Kaufman is married to the sister of former Bush Chief of Staff Andy Card. Card was replaced as Chief of Staff by Josh Bolton — whose sister married … James Connaughton.”

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: bus tour, coal, electricity, natural gas

“American Products. American Power.” Bus Tour Brings Message to Washington

November 5, 2012 by Johnny Russell Leave a Comment

WASHINGTON D.C. — The American Energy Alliance will conclude its three-month “American Products. American Power.” bus tour today by delivering 14,444 petitions to lawmakers and regulators in Washington. The 18,000 mile, 17 state bus tour connected with thousands of Americans at over 50 events. The message of these concerned citizens is clear: this country needs policies that treat our reliable and affordable energy resources as assets, not liabilities. In a letter sent to the leaders in Washington, AEA President Thomas Pyle had the following to say:

“America is the most energy-rich nation in the world yet for far too long Washington has prohibited the use of our domestic energy resources. Moreover, the American people have been misled about our domestic energy and manufacturing potential thanks to lawmakers and regulators perpetuating the myth of energy scarcity.

Today, energy prices are on the rise and American families are struggling to pay their bills. Our economy is growing at an anemic 2% and job creators are handcuffed by harmful regulations. More than ever, America needs to unlock its vast domestic energy resources to create jobs, to secure the future, and to lead the world…”

The “American Products. American Power.” petition calls for the following policies:

We need to unlock our vast domestic energy resources – and provide Americans with more affordable, more secure, and more reliable energy.

We can create manufacturing jobs and prosperity at home – by demanding that Congress, the EPA and other bureaucracies do not burden industries and consumers with unnecessary costs and regulations.

We should ensure that government rules have measurable benefits – and do not prevent vital American industries from accelerating economic growth and providing U.S.-based jobs.

The letter and petition signatures will be sent to:

President Barack Obama

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson

Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar

Secretary of Energy Steven Chu

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell

Speaker of the House John Boehner

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi

To read the full letter, click here.

Filed Under: Press Releases Tagged With: bus tour, domestic energy, EPA regulations, letter to the administration, petition signatures

Products and Power Bus Tour Brings Message to Washington

November 5, 2012 by AEA Leave a Comment

The American Energy Alliance will conclude its three-month “American Products. American Power” bus tour today by delivering 14,444 petitions to the regulators and lawmakers in Washington. The 18,000-mile, 17 state bus tour connected with thousands of Americans at over 50 events. The message of these concerned citizens is clear – this country needs policies that treat our reliable and affordable energy resources as assets, not liabilities. In a letter sent to the leaders in Washington, AEA President Thomas Pyle had the following to say:

(Click here to view the full list of petition signatures and letter sent to the administration and Congress)

Dear Administrator Jackson,

America is the most energy-rich nation in the world yet for far too long Washington has prohibited the use of our domestic energy resources. Moreover, the American people have been misled about our domestic energy and manufacturing potential thanks to lawmakers and regulators perpetuating the myth of energy scarcity.

For the last three months, the American Energy Alliance (AEA) traveled across the country to give Americans the facts, to listen to their concerns, and to bring their voices back to Washington. At more than 50 events in 17 states around the country, the American Products. American Power. bus tour connected with concerned citizens, enlisting their support to end Washington’s war on affordable and reliable energy. By the thousands, the American people have joined the fight for a brighter economic and energy future by signing a nationwide petition and by adding their names to our 45-foot, 25-ton mobile petition.

The Americans we met on the road told us to carry a clear message back to Washington: our nation needs policies that treat our manufacturing potential and energy resources as assets, not liabilities. America’s domestic refining and chemical industries employ nearly 2 million people and make modern life possible by providing transportation fuels and creating the building blocks for thousands of consumer products such as plastics, medicines, high-tech medical devices, appliances, and safety equipment. Moreover, America is blessed with the largest coal reserves in the world – a 500-year supply that creates jobs and affordable, reliable energy that powers the modern economy. Yet the current administration is waging a war on coal, destroying jobs and driving up consumer prices.

The American Energy Alliance is committed to ensuring that the American people’s voices are not lost in the energy debate. These are the principles that the American people believe our energy policies should follow, and attached are the names of over 14,400 Americans who stand with AEA in this fight:

Tell Congress and the Administration that America needs policies that unlock American energy and unleash economic growth.

We need to unlock our vast domestic energy resources – and provide Americans with more affordable, more secure, and more reliable energy.

We can create manufacturing jobs and prosperity at home – by demanding that Congress, the EPA and other bureaucracies do not burden industries and consumers with unnecessary costs and regulations.

We should ensure that government rules have measurable benefits – and do not prevent vital American industries from accelerating economic growth and providing U.S.-based jobs.

Sincerely,

Thomas J. Pyle

President, American Energy Alliance

Click here to view the full list of petition signatures and letter sent to the administration and Congress .

Filed Under: News, Products and Power

More Scare Tactics on Climate Regulations

November 5, 2012 by AEA Leave a Comment

Bjorn Lomborg has a great article in Foreign Policy walking through the problems with a major new study warning of the need for government action on climate change in order to avoid millions (!) of deaths. Lomborg’s critique shows how the climate change debate, especially as it’s reported in the major media, is full of exaggerations and non sequiturs. Even though the advocates of massive new government regulations like to use the phrase “climate denier,” this has nothing to do with the physical science itself. Rather, the loudest cries for aggressive regulations ignore what the physical and economic studies show, as Lomborg points out so elegantly in his piece.

The study in question is put out by a group called DARA and is titled, “Climate Vulnerability Monitor 2nd Edition. A Guide to the Cold Calculus of a Hot Planet.” Upon the study’s release in late September, major media around the world breathlessly repeated its shocking findings. For example, the Huffington Post ran an article with the headline, “”Climate Change Deaths Could Total 100 Million By 2030 If World Fails To Act.”

The only problem is that this claim is completely bogus, for several different reason. First of all, Lomborg shows that the actual study doesn’t back up this claim:

[T]he report is seen to claim that “climate change deaths could total 100 million by 2030.” This is actually not what the report says. It carefully outlines how “the present carbon-intensive economy” is causing 4.975 million deaths per year as of 2010, and how by 2030 the “carbon economy — and climate change-related” impacts will kill 6 million people every year.

Why the cumbersome language of a “combined climate-carbon” economy? Drilling into the composition of the 4.975 million deaths in 2010, one finds these deaths are not predominantly caused by climate …

Indeed, 1.4 million deaths are caused by outdoor air pollution, which is almost entirely unrelated to global warming.

Thus we see the clever bait-and-switch used by the study’s authors. They wanted a really big number for the headlines, and so they discussed deaths due to the “combined climate-carbon” economy, knowing that in the big policy debates, the average reader would assume these were deaths associated with global warming. Digging into the actual study, Lomborg finds that the actual number of deaths even possibly attributable to global warming / climate change is 400,000—and this number too is likely exaggerated, Lomborg claims, but he is relying on the study itself just to make the point. Yet even if this were the correct number, Lomborg says that the study’s summary statements show “the impression clearly intended for the media was almost 5 million deaths, or a more than twelve-fold exaggeration.”

Another major problem: The study’s estimates of the economic cost of climate change in the next few decades completely disagrees with the actual peer-reviewed studies on the subject. This isn’t something that the average person knows, because the alarmists repeatedly chant the mantra of how climate change is already wreaking havoc on the world. But here is a quotation from the DARA study itself:

The findings of this report differ from previous studies that largely understand climate change as a net benefit or minimal cost to society today (or prior to mid-century), and which inform current economic decision-making on climate change, making it easier for governments to avoid serious action.

After quoting from this bit of refreshing candor, Lomborg wryly comments: “Such admission, of course, should make us wary of suddenly accepting a phenomenally larger estimate (with a different sign) from a study that has not been published in the peer-reviewed literature.”

Yet it gets even worse. Let’s put aside the fact that the study used a very misleading summary of its findings, to inflate the perceived death toll of climate change by a factor of 12, and that its own non-peer-reviewed analysis is at complete odds with the received economic studies of the impact of climate change through mid-century. Even so, nobody thinks that aggressive actions by governments today, can appreciably alter the climate’s trajectory by the year 2030. Even the most alarmist advocates of massive intervention are only claiming that we need to act immediately, in order to start turning the ship, as it were. Here’s Lomborg’s description of the problem:

By constantly talking about action and inaction throughout the report, DARA managed to get almost all newspapers to emphasize that all of the bad outcomes described by 2030 would only happen if we didn’t take climate action. The truth is, that nothing we realistically could do about climate emissions would make any change by 2030.

Lomborg’s purpose wasn’t to be a “denier”; he personally believes the type of climate models endorsed by major scientific organizations and the IPCC. Rather, Lomborg is simply showing another example of academics using deliberately misleading statistics, in order to get the major media to sway public opinion in favor of government regulations in the name of climate change—even though the actual science doesn’t validate the narrative in question.

When it comes to looking at government interventions in the energy or transportation sectors, it’s not enough to ask, “Is global warming real?” We must go further and look at the actual economic impacts, and see the costs and benefits of the proposals. Very often the very analyses used to justify the proposals, do not back up what their advocates claim.

Filed Under: Emissions Standards, News, Products and Power, Renewable Fuel Standard, Threats, Tier 3 Standards Tagged With: Bjorn Lomborg, carbon emissions, carbon tax, climate change, Foreign Policy

In the Pipeline: 11/5/12

November 5, 2012 by AEA Leave a Comment

18^th in the Economic Freedom of the World Report? If this ship were still sailing, we would be going in the wrong direction. But apparently we’re just sinking now. Washington Times (11/4/12) reports: “In a new policy study for the Institute for Energy Research, we warn policymakers about this new form of regulatory analysis, which is driven by both ideology and a flawed behavioral approach to economics. America, which recently slipped to 18th in the Economic Freedom of the World Report, previously enjoyed high economic freedom scores due to keeping regulation at a somewhat sensible level. Some environmental regulations make sense and have obvious direct benefits which economists can quantify, but most EPA regulations today impede economic progress and are justified by dubious spillover benefits.”

The EPA is burning the midnight oil to kill coal. Washington Examiner(11/4/12) reports: “President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency has devoted an unprecedented number of bureaucrats to finalizing new anti-coal regulations that are set to be released at the end of November, according to a source inside the EPA.”

Well now . . . Chicago Tribune (11/1/12) reports: “The United States needs to reconsider its rules on exporting natural gas – even to countries with which it has free trade agreements – now that a surge in drilling has made the nation one of the world’s fastest-growing producers, U.S. Senator Ron Wyden said on Thursday.”

We missed this last week. But fortunately, enforcement at FERC this week is still misguided and colored by political agendas.NYTimes (11/1/12) reports: “Wall Street finds itself in a bare-knuckle brawl with a government agency… Yet the fight is not with the Federal Reserve or another banking regulator, but a less-known agency more accustomed to patrolling the nation’s energy pipeline than a trading floor… The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the government watchdog overseeing the oil, natural gas and electricity business, has lately taken aim at three major banks suspected of manipulating energy prices.”

Do you remember all the way back to last week when we suggested that people aren’t willing to pay for Bolshevik schemes to “address” climate change? Apparently, the crew at the Huffington Post does, and it turns out that not even their readers are willing to pay. Huffington Post (11/2/12) reports: “Only one in five Americans would be willing to pay significantly more for gas or electricity, even if they were assured that it meant solving the climate change crisis, according to a HuffPost/YouGov poll conducted this week.”

We ran a related article last week, but discovered over the weekend that many otherwise bright people have limited anxiety about a carbon tax or any cognate (like this). That’s not good because Treasury, environmentalists, and likely Romney appointees like Greg Mankiw and Glenn Hubbard are in favor of this sort of thing. It is very bad mojo. Fox News (11/1/12) reports: “A major tax study currently being sponsored by the U.S. Treasury will give environmental activists a powerful new weapon in their campaign to alter the entire American economic and social landscape in the name of halting “climate change”—including the possible levying of new carbon taxes.”

New York City was unprepared for a weather event that its own staff had foreseen. Maybe if El Bloombito had spent more time worrying about that, and less time worrying about the size of soda or when to endorse Obama, fewer of his fellow New Yorkers would be dead. PowerLine (11/4/12) reports: “What is [Bloomberg] going to do about the fact that his city was less prepared than it should have been for a disaster that was expected and one of a sort will certainly recur, climate change or not?”

Some more fun facts on Sandy, hurricanes, and the usual persiflage. GlobalWarming.org (11/2/12) reports: “With respect to hurricane damages, the chief and as yet only discernible difference between recent and earlier decades is that ”There are more people and more wealth in harm’s way.” So there is an ‘anthropogenic’ component, but not the sort about which warmists complain. “Partly this [increase in damages] is due to local land-use policies, partly to incentives such as government-subsidized insurance, but mostly to the simple fact that people like being on the coast and near rivers,” Pielke, Jr. explains.”

Alas, the unintended consequences of bad government policy rear its ugly head. American Bird Conservancy (10/17/12) reports: “A coalition of eight conservation organizations has called on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to make changes at a wind energy facility in Western Maryland to reduce bird and bat mortality.”

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: coal, Economic Freedom, electricity, EPA, gas, natural gas, Regulation, wind energy

In the Pipeline: 11/2/12

November 2, 2012 by AEA Leave a Comment

We missed this earlier in the week. But the hypocrisy is so excruciatingly brilliant that we had to share it. For those who have not been watching, these two Senators are leading the charge to extend the wind production tax credit. Washington Times(10/31/12) reports: “Each job created with federal stimulus cash through the Obama administration’s advanced battery manufacturing program cost more than $158,000 and many of them likely were temporary, according to an analysis released Wednesday by two senior Republicans… Sens. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and John Thune of South Dakota, members of the Senate Finance Committee, cited figures they obtained after pressing for verification of administration claims of the economic benefits of the $2 billion program funded under the stimulus bill.”

Todd Wynn is a stone cold killer. And his hair is awesome. Master Resource (11/1/12) reports: “These mandates are all regressive. When the cost of electricity rises, low income households shoulder a greater burden than higher income households as the energy costs make up a larger portion of their budget. This is especially true for low income households that are on fixed income such as social security or retirement since their income most likely does not keep pace with higher costs of living.”

Another dog bites man story. American Clean Skies Foundation (October 2012) reports: “This new ACSF report shows that shale gas and tight oil production will add $167 billion to $245 billion to the U.S. gross domestic product by 2017, and that will deliver 835,000 to 1.6 million new jobs. This is only one of the many ways technological innovations in natural gas and tight oil production are transforming the U.S. economy.”

The Great Oz has spoken! Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. The Hill (11/1/12) reports: “The scientific enterprise at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is broken, contrary to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson’s assertions that “science is the backbone of everything we do at EPA,” or that major regulations are based on the recommendations of EPA’s “independent” science advisors. As Americans face a fragile economy and skyrocketing energy prices fueled by President Obama’s agenda, it is important to pull back the curtain on the ideologically-driven processes EPA is using to justify an avalanche of costly rules.”

To remain green, we obviously need more lead-acid batteries all around. Or maybe more nickel-cadmium batteries. Bloomberg(10/31/12) reports: “Some of the roughly 6 million power customers in the Northeast without electricity in Hurricane Sandy’s wake may be glancing around at a handful of homes with solar panels on their rooftops, thinking their clean-powered neighbors might have juice. Most of the time, that’s not the case.”

Shouldn’t they have asked for more wind turbines or charging stations or cellulosic ethanol? I mean, I’m pretty sure these people keep telling us that gasoline is the fuel of the past or some such nonsense. Senators Lautenberg and Mendez (11/1/12) report: “We are learning from our county offices of emergency management (OEMs) that there are critical shortages of gasoline and diesel fuel. They have told us they are running out of these resources to run their emergency vehicles and critical infrastructure, such as sewage waste water treatment, and drinking water and sanitation facilities.”

Fewer droughts, fewer hurricanes. Good news for the rest of us, but bad news for the climate vultures. WSJ (10/31/12) reports: “Sandy was terrible, but we’re currently in a relative hurricane ‘drought.’ Connecting energy policy and disasters makes little scientific sense but that doesn’t stop the nation’s top scientists, Waxman-Markey-Bloomberg from doing it.”

So, apparently, they aren’t any better as boats than they are as cars. Jalopnik (10/30/12) reports: “Approximately 16 of the $100,000+ Fisker Karma extended-range luxury hybrids were parked in Port Newark, New Jersey last night when water from Hurricane Sandy’s storm surge apparently breached the port and submerged the vehicles. As Jalopnik has exclusively learned, the cars then caught fire and burned to the ground.”

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: carbon tax, electricity prices, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, Lisa Jackson, Obama, Solar panels, stimulus

LABOR REPORT: U.S. LOSES MORE MINING JOBS

November 2, 2012 by AEA Leave a Comment

WASHINGTON D.C. — American Energy Alliance President Thomas Pyle released the following statement concerning today’s jobs report by the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

“Today’s employment report underscores the need for new, pro-growth policies for the energy and manufacturing sectors. Mining lost 9,000 jobs in October, and this vital industry has shed 17,000 jobs since May. Manufacturing jobs were flat again this month, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that this sector has shown little change since April. Average earnings fell again, yet energy prices continue to climb. The American people have endured more than four years of economic hardship, yet Washington regulators have continued their assault on affordable energy and the jobs that developing our domestic resources could provide, particularly on federal lands. We cannot experience lasting economic recovery or create the jobs that will drive our energy future with the status quo.”

###

Filed Under: News, Products and Power Tagged With: coal miners, Jobs Report, mining jobs