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: 1/30/13

January 30, 2013 by Leave a Comment

We’re not entirely cynical, because Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy are still real. Consumer Energy Report (1/29/13) reports: “I don’t ride a unicorn to work because unicorns don’t exist… But imagine the following scenario. A number of companies claim that they are developing unicorns, and in 3 years they will be commercially available. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) thinks ‘Hey, this is a great idea. It would be a more environmentally friendly method of transport. Let’s force automakers to start selling these unicorns in 3 years. We will base our projections on how many unicorns these unicorn companies say they will produce. After that we will increase the number the automakers must sell in each subsequent year, and then force the automakers to pay up if they don’t meet these quotas.’”

 

If you woke up this morning, and you are an EPA Administrator, do you feel better knowing that Congressional investigators are reading your emails?  Probably not.  But it makes us feel better. Senator Vitter (1/29/13) reports: “In a joint letter sent today, Senator David Vitter (R-La.), the top Republican of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, and Congressman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, questioned James Martin, Region 8 Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), regarding his use of a non-official e-mail account to conduct official business, potentially violating federal transparency laws… In documents obtained by Senate EPW and House OGR committees, Administrator Martin used a non-official, me.com, e-mail account, which may have been an attempt to circumvent the Federal Records Act, the Freedom of Information Act, and Congressional oversight.”

 

This is what happens when you elect morons (Ritter, not Hickenlooper). Denver Post (1/29/13) reports: “The audit concluded the agency can’t demonstrate the $252 million spent over the past six years was used cost-effectively. Much of that amount-$144 million from fiscal years 2009 through 2012-was federal stimulus money… First created in 1977 to promote energy conservation, the office took on new significance under former Democratic Gov. Bill Ritter, whose focus on renewable energy development was a legacy of his term from 2007 to 2011. Last year, the Legislature and current governor, Democrat John Hickenlooper, agreed to expand beyond renewables, with funding for all types of energy development projects in the mix, including gas, oil and coal.”

 

EDF.  The Nature Conservancy.  The Audubon Society.  This is the sort of thing we are up against every day. Walton Family Foundation(2012) reports: “In 2012, the Walton Family Foundation invested more than $432 million in initiatives to expand opportunity for individuals and communities in the United States and internationally. The majority of investments were made in three key areas of focus – K-12 education reform, freshwater and marine conservation and quality of life initiatives in Arkansas and Mississippi.”

 

We’re just glad something in DC still works. Breitbart (1/28/13) reports: “Washington, DC local residents and environmentalists gathered at a meeting room in a Methodist Church on Capitol Hill last Thursday to discuss their dissatisfaction with the Capitol Hill cogeneration plant… The plant, which was completely coal fired for almost one hundred years, exclusively heats the capitol. However, since 2007, according to the Architect of the Capitol (AOC), the plant began to move from burning primarily coal to burning mostly natural gas–but not entirely. Coal is still burned at the plant, but the rate of its reduction is not fast enough for local environmentalists and lawmakers.”

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

In the Pipeline: 1/29/13

January 29, 2013 by Leave a Comment

What will it take for people to realize that electricity isn’t generated by a bunch of wizards and fairy tales at Hogwarts? Washington Times (1/27/13) reports: “Environmental Protection Agency regulations are snuffing out another power plant, Chase Power announced Wednesday, killing its $3 billion Corpus Christi, Texas, coal project and 3,900 prospective jobs… ‘Chase Power … has opted to suspend efforts to further permit the facility and is seeking alternative investors as part of a plan of dissolution for the parent company,’ Chase CEO Dave Freysinger said in a statement to the Corpus Christi Caller-Times… Mr. Freysinger said that although financial conditions played a role in the decision, the project was the victim of an insurmountable regulatory framework erected by the EPA.”

 

Don’t let the sun go down on me. Oregon Live (1/25/13) reports: “SolarWorld, the German company with a taxpayer-subsidized factory in Hillsboro, may face sale or bankruptcy, analysts say, after its shares and bonds tanked Friday in Frankfurt… In Hillsboro, where the solar manufacturer once employed 1,000, a spokesman said Friday the company was laying off 50, cutting the work force to 725 by March.”

 

I’m no lawyer, but didn’t Tommy, Johnny, and James write up a bill that protects against this kind of thing? Chicago Tribune (1/24/13) reports: “Jennifer Stahl of the 1400 block of Westglen Drive, received two ordinance violation citations — interfering with a police officer and preventing access to customer premises… Stahl, who was released from custody about 4:30 p.m., said when she refused the smart meter, installers accompanied by police cut the bicycle lock she had placed on her fence and entered her backyard. She then stood in front of her electric meter and refused to move… ‘It was forced on my house today,’ she said. ‘It was really a violation. I violated something, but I’ve been violated too so I guess we’re now in a society of violating one another.’”

 

Is this one of those flash mob things? Get your dancing shoes on, ladies and gentlemen. Center for Industrial Progress (1/28/13) reports: “This rally has nothing to do with climate, though I know many of its participants believe it does. It is about opposing any form of practical energy for any reason. It is a Blackout Rally. And today’s so-called environmentalist movement is a Blackout Movement. No one wants dirty water–but some people want to destroy the energy that keeps our lights on (and cleans our water)… On February 17, Center for Industrial Progress will challenge the Blackout Rally with our message of improving the planet for human beings through energy, technology, and development. Blackout Movement–meet the Light Brigade.”

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

In the Pipeline: 1/28/13

January 28, 2013 by Leave a Comment

It’s not a question of enough, pal.  It’s a zero sum game – somebody wins, somebody loses. Money itself isn’t lost or made; it’s simply transferred from one perception to another. Phoenix Business Journal (1/19/13) reports: “Salt River Project is evaluating a plan put forward by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that would require as much as $1.1 billion in emission upgrades at the Navajo Generating Station… The coal-fired power plant near Page is owned by a consortium of utilities that includes SRP and Arizona Public Service Co. as well as the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, which uses it as a source of power for the Central Arizona Project.”

 

His Majesty has a difficult decision to make, so please extend him every courtesy.  He must choose between placating the ecothugs in his Royal Court (like Bill McKibben) or providing his already suffering subjects with low cost energy and jobs. ABC News (1/23/13) reports: “But Obama faces significant pressure from an engaged environmental lobby to block the plan, particularly in light of his groundbreaking comments on climate change in his second inaugural address… ‘You cannot say the words the president did in his inaugural address, and then turn around and approve the pipeline,’ said Jane Kleeb with BOLD Nebraska, an advocacy group opposed to the plan. ‘This much is as crystal clear as the Ogallala Aquifer is without this risky export tar sands pipeline.’”

 

Although it was great for Bruce’s creative juices, it’s a good sign that Americans will no longer have to be born down in a dead man town. Barron’s (1/26/13) reports: “As the only industrialized superpower not decimated by World War II, the United States once made nearly 40% of the planet’s goods. These days, that number has shrunk to 18%. We make American Girl dolls in China, Levi’s jeans in Mexico, and enough movies in Vancouver to nickname it Hollywood North… Chemical makers guzzle energy and also rely on byproducts from oil and gas purification — stuff like ethane, butane, and propane — for raw materials. So the shale boom delivers a double blessing of cheap feedstock and energy. In fact, PwC thinks that we might start seeing more plastic-based substitutes for materials like metal, glass, or wood. That’s good news for diversified specialty-chemical giants like DuPont (DD), and also Dow Chemical (DOW), which is investing $4 billion to boost production and build an ethylene plant in Texas that could hire 2,000 workers.”

 

The gummint ought to stop this pronto. ABC News (1/27/13) reports: “Private landowners are reaping billions of dollars in royalties each year from the boom in natural gas drilling, transforming lives and livelihoods even as the windfall provides only a modest boost to the broader economy… ‘We used to have to put stuff on credit cards. It was basically living from paycheck to paycheck,’ said Shawn Georgetti, who runs a family dairy farm in Avella, about 30 miles southwest of Pittsburgh.”

 

This guy ran a utility?  Poverty, Climate Change and Social Justice is an odd name for a charitable fund. Unless of course J. Wayne is funding organizations that are against Socially Unjust Climate Change policies that will do nothing other than keep people in Poverty.  I’m sure this woman can’t wait to hear who gets the first grant. Entergy (1/25/13) reports: “Entergy Corporation today announced the creation of a $5 million endowment to honor retiring Chairman and Chief Executive Officer J. Wayne Leonard and continue efforts to address the issues of climate change, poverty and social justice.”

 

Too bad the eco-scamsters will have to wait four years before they try and “Pombo” Vitter.  In the meantime, sit back, relax, and enjoy the fight. Senator Vitter (1/22/13) reports: “U.S. Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) is warning of more secret “sue and settle” deals with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and environmental groups. In a letter today, Vitter encourages Louisiana Attorney General Buddy Caldwell to join the 13 states’ AGs who recently filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with EPA asking for any and all correspondence between EPA and a list of 80 environmental, labor union and public interest organizations that had been party to litigation since the start of the Obama Administration.”

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

Regulating “Particulate Matter”: The EPA Doesn’t Even Believe Its Own Bogus Numbers

January 25, 2013 by Leave a Comment


People who have watched environmental policy debates soon learn that the alarmist interventionists—the ones claiming that the government needs to act quickly in order to prevent catastrophe—are not afraid to throw around terrifying statistics that are absurd on their face. In a different forum, I walked through this phenomenon when it came to proposed regulations of mercury emissions from power plants. Susan Dudley, of George Washington University’s Regulatory Studies Center, recently published a scathing critique of the EPA’s Final Rule on ambient air quality standards for particulate matter. As Dudley points out, the EPA’s numbers are patently absurd, and not even the EPA is following its own logic seriously. This episode is just another example of wildly inflated statistics being used to justify a desired policy move.

A Return That Would Make Warren Buffett Blush

Dudley first provides the context for her analysis:

On January 14th, the Environmental Protection Agency published a final rule in the Federal Register updating the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter (PM).  The rule reduces allowable annual concentrations of fine particles (PM2.5) by 20 percent, from 15.0 μg/m3 (last set in 2006) to 12.0 μg/m3. According to EPA, meeting the standard “will provide health benefits worth an estimated $4 billion to $9.1 billion per year in 2020—a return of $12 to $171 for every dollar invested in pollution reduction.

Let’s be sure to parse these statements. The EPA regulates the acceptable concentration of “PM2.5,” which stands for “particulate matter” (very fine particles floating in the air) that have a diameter of no more than 2.5 micrometers, i.e. 0.25 percent of one millimeter in diameter. (These aren’t softballs we’re talking about here.)  Currently, the EPA standard (in force since 2006) sets a maximum concentration of these particles in the air at 15 micrograms per cubic meter. To get a rough sense of what that means, if we took the particulate matter to be table salt, and the air volume to be Olympic-sized swimming pools, then the current rule imposes a maximum concentration of a “pinch” of table salt dropped in six pools.

Yet the EPA wants to tighten the regulations by 20 percent, from 15 micrograms down to 12 micrograms. In order for certain regions of the country to comply with these tighter standards, costly changes must be made to the way industry operates. Yet don’t worry, because EPA’s analysis suggests that the benefits to human health (from the reduction in concentration of tiny particulate matter in the air) will vastly outweigh the regulatory costs. As Dudley quotes, the EPA states that its tighter rule “will provide health benefits worth an estimated $4 billion to $9.1 billion per year in 2020—a return of $12 to $171 for every dollar invested in pollution reduction.”

Working backwards, EPA is here saying that the compliance costs of the new regulations will range somewhere between $53 million and $333 million. Then, if the estimated health benefits range between $4 billion and $9.1 billion, the health benefits per dollar of compliance costs will be at least $12 ($4 billion divided by $333 million), and at most $171 ($9.1 billion divided by $53 million).

The implied rates of return are astounding. In the worst-case scenario, EPA is claiming the public will take a dollar of anti-pollution spending and get back $12 in health benefits, while in the best-case scenario each dollar spent on reducing particulate matter will yield $171 in benefits. If the actual numbers are anywhere close to this, one wonders why it takes the EPA to force such an outcome on the economy. Why doesn’t the government simply pay the relevant industries (say) $1 million to change their emission practices, in order to save (say) $2 million in Medicare payments? This wouldn’t require any extra tax dollars; indeed it would save the government money, assuming the EPA’s numbers were true.

Indeed, if these wild numbers are even remotely correct, it shouldn’t take the government to do anything except publicize this research, and then private health and life insurance companies would have an incentive to pay industry to revamp their operations. It’s true, there would be all sorts of “leakage” of the benefits from these expenditures, but with a payoff of $12 to $171 in health benefits (sometimes in the form of an “premature death avoided”) to each dollar spent on emission controls, there’s a big margin for error.

Why Stop There?

After documenting the EPA’s incredible estimates for the potency of the proposed rule, Dudley takes their own logic to its full conclusion:

According to EPA’s final Regulatory Impact Analysis, meeting the 12.0 μg/m3 standard will avoid between 460 and 1,000 premature deaths per year.  However, the analysis also indicates that further tightening—going from a standard of 12 μg/m3 to 11 μg/m3—would yield additional life savings of 1,040 to 2,300 mortalities per year. Furthermore, the incremental life-savings EPA estimates from reducing the standard from 12μg/m3 to 11μg/m3 are significantly larger than the life-saving increment it estimates for a reduction from 13μg/m3 to 12μg/m3. Particularly given EPA’s statutory mandate, it is puzzling that the Administrator chose to set a standard that leaves so many lives unprotected.

Dudley goes on to suggest that one explanation for this “puzzle” is that the EPA doesn’t actually believe these numbers, either.

The Fuzziness in the Estimated Dangers of “Particulate Matter”

One of the major problems that vitiates the EPA’s entire analysis is that the estimates of the public health dangers of particulate matter are quite dubious. In her analysis of the impact of a different EPA regulatory rule, Anne Smith explained (pp. 6-7):

[R]eaders unfamiliar with the literature on PM2.5 health risks should be aware that the estimates of PM2.5-attributed deaths…are based entirely on statistical associations between total mortality rates in various locations of the US and their respective monitored, region-wide ambient PM2.5 concentrations…EPA’s estimate of 6,800 to 17,000 PM2.5-related premature deaths avoided in 2016 as a result of the Proposed [Utility MACT] Rule is based on an assumption that 130,000 to 320,000 deaths, respectively, of 2005’s US deaths were hastened by breathing ambient PM2.5. And yet, EPA identifies not a single death during 2005 that was attributed, even in part, to exposure to ambient PM2.5.  If PM2.5 is indeed having this estimated effect on the public health, there is no evidence indicating when or where these events occurred, or who was affected.  Rather, these mortality estimates are merely inferences drawn after making a host of assumptions about how to convert a statistical association into a concentration-response function.  No one really even knows what types of deaths might be implicated.  A common belief among researchers is that the deaths are primarily cardiovascular in nature, but this is far from an established fact:  everything from cardiovascular causes to diabetes to lung cancer has been mentioned as having such an association in one paper or another. There is no clinical evidence to inform these inferences either, despite at least 15 years of efforts by researchers to find a clear physiological mechanism to explain and lend credibility to these estimates based solely on statistical correlations. [Bold added.]

Conclusion

When we delve into the specifics of EPA’s estimates of the cost/benefit ratio of its rules, the results are so absurd that even EPA doesn’t logically act upon them. Indeed, if the policymakers involved actually thought these numbers were defensible, it wouldn’t take government coercion to obtain immediate action. They could simply explain the medical facts to various insurance companies, who would stand to save millions of dollars by subsidizing the necessary compliance measures. Yet I imagine such a suggestion would be laughed out of court, showing that these estimates are quite dubious and wouldn’t stand up in front of people who had a choice in spending the money.

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

In the Pipeline: 1/25/13

January 25, 2013 by Leave a Comment

What the hell, it’s only money, right? Daily Caller (1/24/13) reports: “California has been a leader in Renewable Energy production, in part due to federal and state level policies that provide incentives for producers of renewable power. However, a new report found that California’s Energy policies will raise state power rates and associated costs by nearly 33 percent… The report by the free-market Pacific Research Institute specifically focuses on the additional costs imposed by a state mandate that requires 33 percent of its power come from renewable sources, like wind, solar and geothermal by 2020. PRI estimates that the California renewable portfolio standard will be an additional $5 billion in 2020.”

 

“We don’t even have a grid in America.”  Are you sure this guy is a Senator?  Does he use electricity?  Does he do anything well except marry rich girls? Politico (1/24/13) reports: “Kerry said there was an ‘extraordinary amount of opportunity’ in modernizing the American energy grid that would allow producers to sell energy across the country rather than restricting it to a small region… ‘We don’t even have a grid in America,’ Kerry said. ‘We have a great big open gap in the circle of America. We’ve got an East Coast grid, a West Coast grid, you’ve got a Texas grid, and then you have a line that goes out from Chicago over to the Dakotas. We can’t sell energy from Minnesota to Arizona, or from Arizona to Massachusetts or the cold states and so forth. It doesn’t make sense. And we can’t be a modern country if we don’t fix that infrastructure.’”

 

Hide your cats. WSJ (1/24/13) reports: “‘A lot of you press me . . . on: ‘Where is the bill on climate change? Where is the bill?’ There doesn’t have to be a bill,’ Mrs. Boxer explained in a briefing the day after Mr. Obama’s speech. ‘I’m telling you right now, EPA has the authority in the transportation sector, the electricity sector, and the industrial sector under the Clean Air Act’ to do everything that legislation might otherwise do… In other words, with the election over, all pretense is gone. Democrats won’t waste political capital on a doomed cap-and-trade bill. Yet they’ll get their carbon program all the same, by deputizing the EPA to impose sweeping new rules and using their Senate majority to block any GOP effort to check the agency’s power grab.”

 

Ripper, you little!  There’s oil in the outback.  Trillions worth.  Throw some shrimp on the barbie, mates and bust out the Fosters, cause we’re gonna be rich. The Telegraph (1/24/13) reports: “Up to 233 billion barrels of oil has been discovered in the Australian outback that could be worth trillions of dollars, in a find that could turn the region into a new Saudi Arabia.”

 

Since renewable portfolio standards clearly aren’t working, Soviet style coercion should do the trick, right? Aspen Daily News (1/23/13) reports: “Aspen City Council directed staff to come up with ideas for new regulations that would limit local electricity consumption in a work session on Tuesday… Imposing new regulations on energy use is one potential solution that council is considering in an effort to reach its goal of using only renewable energy to run the city’s electric utility by 2015. Currently, about 75 percent of the city’s portfolio is renewable, according to Dave Hornbacher, the city’s utility director, and that number is about to jump to 89 percent with the addition of more hydropower from southwest Colorado. That translates to 8.9 million kilowatt hours per year of coal-generated electricity that needs to be replaced with renewable fuel sources by 2015 if the city wants to reach its goal, he said.”

 

The following 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 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

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

AEA Statement on Proposed Climate Change Legislation

January 24, 2013 by Leave a Comment

WASHINGTON D.C. — American Energy Alliance President Thomas Pyle released the following statement on reports that Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), will introduce climate change legislation today:

“The president had much to say about climate change in his inaugural speech this week.  And while his Press Secretary made clear that the administration’s efforts in this area will largely bypass Congress, Henry Waxman deserves some degree of commendation for his persistence, however out of touch he is with the real problems facing everyday Americans. The American Energy Alliance looks forward to reviewing the latest installment in the failed cap-and-trade saga, now ostensibly known as Waxman-Whitehouse. And like any effort to increase the cost of energy for American consumers — whether legislative, executive, or regulatory — we will be prepared to fight, though I suspect this effort will have one of the shortest shelf lives of any legislative proposal in modern history.”

###

Filed Under: Press Releases Tagged With: , , ,

In the Pipeline: 1/23/13

January 23, 2013 by Leave a Comment

How much electricity do you figure all that stuff uses?  How many coal miners in West Virginia did it take to power this party?  How many different petrochemicals and people taking heart medication are in the room?  How many of these rich people jetted in? National Wildlife Federation (1/21/13) reports: “VIP celebrities confirmed to attend the event include: Pro Football Hall of Famer Darrell Green, current and former Washington Redskins players Lorenzo Alexander, Kedric Golston, Chris Wilson, Antwaan Randle El, and Derrick Dockery; Washington Capitols player Matt Hendricks; Bill Nye the Science Guy; Comedian and Political Commentator Stephanie Miller; The West Wing’s Melissa Fitzgerald; Les (Survivorman) Stroud & Gina Gershon; Actor and Director Tate Donovan; Actor/Model Boris Kodjoe and Actress/Model Nicole Ari Parker;  Actor and Comedian Wayne Brady, and Race Car Driver Leilani Munter.”

Photo by nationalwildlife.federation

If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again.  Then quit.  There’s no point in being a damned fool about it. ThinkProgress (1/17/13) reports: “Highlighting the fact that a global switch to renewable energy is not just necessary, but doable, a new report released by the WWF concludes that the solar arrays necessary to meet all the world’s projected energy needs in 2050 would cover under one percent of global land area.”

 

 
Up until now, us peasants have been very accommodating towards His Majesty’s green pipe dream.  But when airliners start turning into fireballs, I think we will start to wonder if he has gone George III on us. Washington Examiner (1/22/13) reports: “When Federal Aviation Administration officials grounded Boeing’s fleet of 787 Dreamliner commercial jets last week due to unexplained battery fires, one of President Obama’s favorite green energy technologies got another black eye…. Technologists and safety experts had long warned of problems with the lithium ion battery when in 2009 the president began betting billions of tax dollars that it should be the green power of choice for cars, trucks, and even aircraft.”

 

At least His Majesty reduced unemployment in his first four years and talked all about it in his speech on Monday. Oh wait – no he didn’t. Washington Times (1/22/13) reports: “At at time when everyone else in the country is talking about prolonged unemployment, record spending and the debt ceiling, the president wants to talk about global warming and climate change?” asked Benjamin Cole, a spokesman for the conservative Institute for Energy Research. “It didn’t go well for him with cap-and-trade the first time around. And he’s not going to have the kind of support for these policy proposals [in Congress].”

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

Free Markets Are a “Do Something” Solution

January 22, 2013 by Leave a Comment

 

In policy debates over energy and climate change, the deck is automatically stacked against the free market. Whatever the alleged problem—dependence on foreign oil, manmade global warming, air pollution — the politicians can pose as saviors by swooping in with new regulations, mandates, and taxes to “fix” it. When the critics point out that these alleged solutions will only make things worse, most people don’t care: At least the interventions want to do something about the problem.

In this context, it is refreshing to see a new paper at the National Bureau of Economic Research by Alan Barreca et al., titled, “Adapting to Climate Change: The Remarkable Decline in the U.S. Temperature-Mortality Relationship over the 20th Century.” Here’s the abstract:

Adaptation is the only strategy that is guaranteed to be part of the world’s climate strategy. Using the most comprehensive set of data files ever compiled on mortality and its determinants over the course of the 20th century, this paper makes two primary discoveries. First, we find that the mortality effect of an extremely hot day declined by about 80% between 1900-1959 and 1960-2004. As a consequence, days with temperatures exceeding 90°F were responsible for about 600 premature fatalities annually in the 1960-2004 period, compared to the approximately 3,600 premature fatalities that would have occurred if the temperature-mortality relationship from before 1960 still prevailed. Second, the adoption of residential air conditioning (AC) explains essentially the entire decline in the temperature-mortality relationship. In contrast, increased access to electricity and health care seem not to affect mortality on extremely hot days. Residential AC appears to be both the most promising technology to help poor countries mitigate the temperature related mortality impacts of climate change and, because fossil fuels are the least expensive source of energy, a technology whose proliferation will speed up the rate of climate change. [Bold added.]

The beginning of the abstract is straightforward enough; it is yet another example of the sort of thing documented by Julian Simon: Generally speaking, human beings with their wonderful minds, find ways to make life better over time—even if “objectively” things should be getting worse. That is why, for example, energy has become cheaper according to various metrics—most notably, the number of hours a worker must labor in order to obtain objective amounts of energy—and even the “number of years remaining at current rates of consumption” have risen for certain energy sources, despite their finite nature.

In our present context, this Simonian pattern is evident in the decline in mortality rates from heat in the United States, even though (as the climate alarmists tell us repeatedly) the U.S. has gotten warmer since industrialization. The rise of widespread air conditioning, made possible by capitalism, is the most obvious explanation.

Finally, note what the researchers say at the tail end of their abstract, which I’ve put in bold above. If we agree that the single best way to spare human heat-related deaths is the rapid proliferation of air conditioning, then this means we should be willing to accept faster climate change (if the conventional theory of manmade global warming is correct), since fossil fuels are cheaper right now. In other words, the fastest way to provide air conditioning to the hundreds of millions of people on Earth who are currently vulnerable to heat death, is to accelerate the development of unfettered capitalism in their regions, giving them access to air conditioning and inexpensive electricity.

It is very fashionable to be “for” something, such as a giant carbon tax or subsidies for “green” energy. Yet the people who argue that these are ineffective policies have a solution themselves: Allow free markets to work the same magic abroad, that they did in the United States. This is an empirically proven strategy.

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

In the Pipeline: 1/22/13

January 22, 2013 by Leave a Comment

We normally reserve this space for satire, mockery, and comic relief.  Like I said, we normally reserve this space for satire, mockery, and comic relief…  Politico (1/22/13) reports: “President Barack Obama promised in his inaugural speech to take on climate change in his second term, setting the stage for a series of bruising policy battles over energy, the environment and foreign affairs… Americans’ obligations are not just to self, ‘but to all posterity,’ Obama said. ‘We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.’”

 

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Politico(1/18/13) reports: “The Interior Department is hitting the reset button on its landmark attempt to regulate fracking on federal land… The department Friday announced that BLM “is making improvements to the draft proposal in order to maximize flexibility, facilitate coordination with state practices and ensure that operators on public lands implement best practices,” according to department spokesman Blake Androff.”

 

As we settle into 2013 and start to cheat on our New Year’s resolutions, it is a good reminder that not all weight loss programs are created equal.  And this weight loss program might kill you. National Review (1/8/13) reports: And here’s the part of the deal that got much less attention: the new mandate that all auto manufacturers achieve by 2025 a Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE ) standard of 52 miles per gallon — twice the previous requirement of 26 miles per gallon… At first blush, 52 mpg sounds like a laudable goal. What’s wrong with making more efficient cars? After all, they’ll be more affordable to drive, and simultaneously reduce the nation’s carbon emissions. Talk about a policy twofer! … The problem with the goal is simple: We can get only so far on the mileage front without affecting safety. Allow me, as someone who has spent a lifetime in and around the automotive industry, to explain why.

 

The inbounds pass comes in to Epstein. Here’s Alex at the foul line, the shot… is GOOD! THE BULLS WIN IT! THEY WIN IT! Center for Industrial Progress (1/21/13) reports: “Supporters and opponents of FrackNation attended the premiere’s after-party. Alex Epstein debates an opponent.”

 

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

In the Pipeline: 1/18/13

January 18, 2013 by 1 Comment

Look out, folks.  This young woman is a force to be reckoned with. AEA (1/15/13) reports: “Director of Federal Affairs, Robin Millican, speaks at a press conference held by Rep. Mike Pompeo about the Energy Freedom and Economic Prosperity Act.”

 

We could have come up with a dramatic statement like “Blades of Death Ripping American Bald Eagles to Shreds while the Greens and the Government just Watch” but we would rather let the article speak for its hypocritical self. StarTribune (1/17/13) reports: “A bitterly contested wind farm proposed for Goodhue County got the go-ahead Wednesday to pursue a permit that would allow it to legally kill or injure eagles, in what could be the first case of federal authorities issuing a license to kill the protected national symbol… The 48-turbine project would kill at most eight to 15 eagles a year, a number that would not harm the local population, federal officials said in a letter to state regulators. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said its estimate does not include possible strategies to reduce the number of eagles killed and, that if a permit is eventually granted, the goal would be a much lower figure.”

 

First it was Greece.  Now Germany.  We warned that this was not a silly, isolated event.  With a little foresight we’d all be locking in a long-term contract with a good chimney-sweep. Spiegel Online (1/17/13) reports: “The problem has been compounded this winter by rising energy costs. The Germany’s Renters Association estimates the heating costs will go up 22 percent this winter alone. A side effect is an increasing number of people turning to wood-burning stoves for warmth. Germans bought 400,000 such stoves in 2011, the German magazine FOCUS reported this week. It marks the continuation of a trend: The number of Germans buying heating devices that burn wood and coal has grown steadily since 2005, according to consumer research company GfK Group… That increase in demand has now also boosted prices for wood, leading many to fuel their fires with theft.”

 

Continuing our little tour around the world, this dude in Australia shares his account about what happens when the government gets its hands on a toy to play with voters. Stopthesethings.com (1/13/13) reports: “Now if the chamber of commerce doesn’t fight to block the proposed wind farm, Barber says he will resign from the body and continue to fight the proposal with other concerned residents… One last question: how would he describe the wind industry? … Barber’s response is immediate: ‘The wind industry is a pack of liars and con merchants who couldn’t lie straight in bed. I have absolutely no confidence in anything they say whatsoever.’”

 

New recipe for ‘credibility and perspective’ at Goldman Sachs: A dash of cronyism with a sprinkle of persistent lobbying on top.Bloomberg (1/17/13) reports: “‘The market appears to have toughed in the fourth quarter of last year and several sectors have rallied meaningfully since then,’ Bernstein said… His comments coincide with a deal in the U.S. to extend a tax credit that supports wind-turbine installations. The policy was due to expire Dec. 31 and lobbying efforts to renew it received a boost after President Barack Obama’s re-election… Goldman has been investing in renewable energy since at least 2005, and has a long-term view, said Ethan Zindler, an analyst with New Energy Finance… ‘They have considerable credibility within this sector,’ he said in by e-mail. ‘They have seen the various ups and downs, so they have significant perspective as well.’”

 

The following 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 Commitment
William O’Keefe, George C. Marshall Institute
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
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

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