President Obama kept his promises and bankrupted coal plants, increased electricity rates, and increased gas prices, leading Vice President Biden to say he “thinks our energy policy is the best it has ever been”. VOTE NO on Obama’s failing energy policy.
AEA Takes “Stand with Coal’ Effort to the Airwaves
October 12, 2012 by 1 Comment
WASHINGTON D.C. — The American Energy Alliance released today a 30 second advertisement that will air in Ohio and Virginia markets, starting Oct. 13 and running through Oct. 26. The “Stand With Coal” ad features video footage of President Barack Obama pledging to make “electricity rates skyrocket” and “bankrupt” the coal industry. Vice President Biden is also featured in the ad, claiming that the Obama administration’s energy policy is “the best it’s ever been.”
The ad, which will run primarily in coal country, is the latest phase in AEA’s year long, multi-million dollar effort to educate the American people about the Obama administration’s failed energy record. In April, AEA’s “Nine Dollar Gas” ad aired across the country on cable and TV, in addition to garnering more than 1.7 million views on YouTube. Similarly, AEA will run the “Stand with Coal” spot online.
“The Obama administration has been trying to kill affordable energy from day one, and the American Energy Alliance is committed to fighting back in the war on coal. Coal is America’s most plentiful energy resource, and it provides the largest share of our nation’s electricity needs. AEA stands with coal, and we are mobilizing grassroots activists to support this vital industry that powers our economy and supports jobs in some of our nation’s hardest hit areas,” AEA President Thomas Pyle said.
To view the “Stand With Coal” ad, click here.
To read the hard facts about American coal, click here.
To read the North American Energy Inventory, which gives in depth analysis of U.S. coal reserves, click here.
###
In the Pipeline: 10/12/12
October 12, 2012 by Leave a Comment
Vice President Gore won his Nobel Prize for his “work” on climate change. But you know, the market doesn’t really care about that. They only care that he keeps backing losers. The Street(10/4/12) reports: “Three years ago, First Solar seemed on its way: Interest in solar was at an all-time-high — as were subsidies for making, installing and using it. So America’s largest manufacturer of solar equipment seemed ready to cash in… So did Generation Investment. According to SEC filings, Gore’s company bought 440,000 shares in late 2010 at about $130. By the first quarter of 2012, the value of First Solar — and just about every other solar manufacturer in America — had plummeted.”
Millions for Chevy Volts! But not one cent for defense! Fox News(10/11/12) reports: “The raging debate on Capitol Hill over the Libya consulate attack has put a spotlight on the State Department’s security spending, with some questioning whether money spent on electric cars and green-embassy programs could have been put to better use.”
Part of us hopes that Jay Inslee wins, so he won’t come back to DC as a lobbyist for some commie front group. KIMATV.com (10/10/12) reports: “Jay Inslee once speculated that the solar company SunPower could be the Microsoft of its industry… The Democrat candidate for governor invested a chunk of his own money in the firm, then publicly touted the company’s work making solar panels and championed policies in Congress that would aid the industry’s growth… None of it helped fulfill Inslee’s prediction: SunPower stock – once as high as $133 a share – has sunk to under $5, and the company recently announced it was cutting jobs amid stagnant demand.”
California is the sad, sick, decrepit old man of the United States. Texas is not. Forbes (10/11/12) reports: “The Lone Star state has 50% more jobs than in 1990, compared with only 6% job growth in New York, 8% in Illinois and 14% in California. Americans have been flocking to Texas in droves while fleeing those other states… What’s the secret? It ain’t social services, which Fisher admits are lacking in Texas relative to other states. “But we excel at creating the single most important driver of human dignity and pride: jobs.””
The Sierra Club joins EPA in complete and utter abandoning of any pretense of science, statistical rigor, or anything that approaches rationality. That probably means we’re winning. I would also note that the President — their President — spends a lot of time in Ohio, Virginia, and during debates talking about how much he likes coal. Sierra Club (10/10/12) reports: “Today the Sierra Club and Sierra Magazine released a new photography project examining the effects of coal on the lives of everyday Americans. The feature, “Cost of Coal,” follows the life-cycle of coal, using sharp, poignant images to show the impact coal mining, burning and disposal has on families across the country.”
Thank goodness they didn’t turn it into a park for expensive, unreliable energy. Menard’s is a great store. WXYZ.com (10/09/12) reports: “The Wixom Assembly Plant was supposed to undergo a major renovation and ultimately become an alternative energy park. Back in 2009 local, state and Ford representatives held a huge press conference at the facility announcing that three companies were going to set up shop, creating 4,000 jobs… The companies were supposed to produce things like solar panels, wind turbines and other green energy technology.”
Heads of think tanks* who are publicly opposed to a carbon tax:
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
*It is good to see that many people would like to be included on this list. For now, we’re going to keep it simple and focus on heads of think tanks. If that applies to you and you’d like to join the list, or you think you might know someone who would, please contact [email protected].
The New "Benefits" of Environmental Regulation
October 11, 2012 by Leave a Comment
The American Energy Alliance released today a new study authored by Scott Beaulier and Daniel Sutter that closely examines the purported “benefits” of environmental regulations. The following summary outlines the details of the study’s findings:
- The number of new regulations and estimates of the value of regulation have grown in recent years. Proponents of regulation say the private and coincidental benefits of regulation are high. We disagree and say arguments for large private and coincidental benefits are weak and supported by an extreme point of view in microeconomic theory.
- To say private benefits from regulation are large contradicts basic teachings of microeconomics, where people are engaging in rational, profit maximizing economic activity. If the benefits of a new technology, such as more fuel efficient automobiles, are large, then consumers, will invest in the new product; if not, they will rationally choose not to consume.
- The literature on large co-benefits from regulation is on shaky scientific ground. Many regulations can only be justified by the inclusion of co-benefits and some rely almost entirely on large co-benefits. Furthermore, many attempt to draw on the same “pool” of co-benefits (e.g., particulate matter reductions) without making any assumptions about the pool eventually being exhausted by so many beneficial regulations.
- If the new regulatory approach wants to include co-benefits, a term we call “co-costs” should also be included. These are the unforeseen costs of regulation, such as less innovation, regulatory capture, and higher prices for consumers.
Click here to read the full study: The New “Benefits” of Environmental Regulation
Executive Summary
Although the U.S. economy has been slow to recover from The Great Recession, the nation has experienced a boom in regulation, in both the number of significant regulations and the estimated net social benefits. Environmental regulations have, as usual, accounted for the majority of the reported benefits. A closer examination reveals that the rapid increase in claimed regulatory benefits has resulted from the inclusion of private benefits and co-benefits of recent EPA regulations. These categories of benefits differ substantially from the traditional externality benefits of environmental protection. Private benefits arise when regulation forces firms and consumers to invest in technologies regulators think make them better off, but which people do not believe are valuable. Co-benefits are spillover benefits and result when a regulation to address one pollutant reduces a second pollutant.
We examine in this paper the economic arguments for private benefits and co-benefits and consider some costs of regulation ignored in recent EPA cost-benefit analyses. Arguments for the existence of private benefits likely to be captured through regulation are weak. Failure to purchase the most energy efficient products on the market is not a sign of irrationality requiring government action. The substantial co-benefits of recent EPA regulations are highly dubious. The existence of substantial co-benefits from incidental reductions of fine particulate matter is troubling given the existing air quality standard for this pollutant. If the air quality standard for fine particulate matter has been set properly, there cannot be thousands of avoidable deaths available as co-benefits of other regulations. And while the EPA has diligently included co-benefits, negative side effects or co-costs have been downplayed or ignored. Some omitted co-costs include the value of personal autonomy compromised by paternalistic regulations, reduced productivity due to regulation, and the increase in auto fatalities due to fuel economy regulations.
Cost-benefit analysis properly done provides evidence on whether the social costs of an externality are worth addressing through regulatory action. The emergence of private benefits and co-benefits in environmental regulation indicates that the EPA is moving away from the traditional externality justification for regulation and into uncharted waters.
WHICH CANDIDATE WILL LEAD ON ENERGY?
October 11, 2012 by 2 Comments
WASHINGTON D.C. — The American Energy Alliance released today a candidate comparison infographic, assessing the energy record and policy proposals of President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney. Covering oil, natural gas, coal, renewables, transportation, regulation and personnel, the comparison chart offers a side-by-side assessment of the candidates as the American people consider the future of U.S. energy policies.
AEA President Thomas Pyle released the following statement with the comparison chart:
“Energy policy has captured the attention of the American people unlike any other time in our nation’s quadrennial exercise in self-government. This election year, perhaps even more than 1980, offers voters a clear contrast on energy policy between the two candidates. Will America’s energy future be marked by taxpayer-funded subsidies, more government mandates, onerous regulations, bailouts and bankruptcies? Will Washington force the American people to buy expensive, unreliable and intermittent energy sources? Or will our future involve greater energy security, more jobs, more domestic production, and more affordable fuel sources?
“The American Energy Alliance sees a clear path forward that builds upon private-sector successes in harnessing American-made energy and creating good-paying jobs. We cannot have four more years of the policy failures that have led to skyrocketing electricity rates, record high gasoline and home heating oil prices, and billions of wasted taxpayer dollars to prop up uneconomic renewable industries that don’t exist without government life support. It’s time to pull the plug on broken energy policies, and chart a new course that relies on American power and American products.
“Regardless of who wins, the American Energy Alliance will continue our fight for affordable, reliable, domestic sources of energy.”
To view the American Energy Alliance’s “Obama-Romney Energy Comparison Chart,” click here.
###
In the Pipeline: 10/11/12
October 11, 2012 by Leave a Comment
Dan is right. The Obama crew has a relentless preference for unreliable, expensive forms of graft and corruption that require taxpayer support. They have waged relentless war on affordable, reliable energy. How much simpler can we make it? IER (10/10/12) reports: “IER Senior Vice President Daniel Kish released the following statement in response to the Interior Department’s announcement regarding the Chokeberry and Sierra Madre Wind Energy Project in Wyoming: “The constant message the Obama administration sends to the American people is clear — unreliable, intermittent and expensive energy sources will receive preferential treatment, while the affordable and reliable sources we use every day will be taxed, embargoed, and driven into bankruptcy.”
None of these entities are going to pay the tax. The people of Japan are going to pay the tax. Reuters (10/10/12) reports: “Japan’s new tax on carbon emissions will cost utilities about 80 billion yen ($1.02 billion) annually from 2016, adding to their already high costs of running power stations after the Fukushima crisis shut most of the country’s nuclear plants, a government backed think-tank said.”
It is about time. Energy & Commerce (10/10/12) reports: “Republican members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee today wrote to U.S. Comptroller General and head of the Government Accountability Office Gene Dodaro requesting a study of federal spending used to support energy-related technologies. Full committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI), Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-KY), Rep. Tim Murphy (R-PA), and Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS) are requesting the study in response to concerns over the dramatic growth of spending and subsidies in energy markets.”
Where is Senator Boxer’s letter howling about this market manipulation, this victimization of Californians? Forbes (10/10/12) reports: “California regulators on Wednesday approved a $10 million grant to Tesla Motors to help manufacture its next electric car, the Model X sport utility vehicle.”
Did Obama Policies Aid Hugo Chavez’s Reelection? IER (10/10/12) reports: “The value that U.S. dependence on Venezuelan oil provides to that country’s socialist dictator, Hugo Chavez, cannot fully be estimated. Currently, Venezuela ranks fourth as a supplier of U.S. oil imports after Canada, Saudi Arabia and Mexico. But the United States could drastically reduce support of Hugo Chavez’s oil regime if President Obama had approved the Keystone XL pipeline, which is designed to move 830,000 barrels of oil per day from Canada to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast where Venezuelan crude arrives by tanker.”
I have no idea why we keep running these sort of stories, except that they amuse us. They also help confirm our suspicions that this whole solar thing is a bit of a racket. Renewable Energy World (10/10/12) reports: “Suntech has $541 million of convertible notes due in March, more than triple its market value of $164 million. It has a total of almost $2.3 billion in debt and is expected to report a loss of $495 million this year, the average of five estimates compiled by Bloomberg, as panel prices fall. The company is overleveraged and will face difficulties shoring up its balance sheet, Molchanov said in an interview… “I’d be interested to see the rabbit Suntech and UBS can pull out of their hat,” he said.”
I wonder if this is disappointing for the people who worship solar panels as if they were some sort of savior for mankind. Washington Times (10/10/12) reports: “But a series of emails from solar power giant BrightSource Energy Inc. show how the company applied political pressure and used behind-the-scenes cajoling to win a $1.6 billion loan guarantee in April 2011.”
Four Years Later: Is Energy Better Off?
October 11, 2012 by Leave a Comment
WASHINGTON D.C. — The American Energy Alliance released today a comparison chart answering the basic question in many American’s minds: Are we better off today than we were four years ago? With an exclusive focus on energy markets, regulations, and the economic impact of energy policies, the American Energy Alliance answered this question by looking at trends in energy regulations, energy costs, and taxpayer-funded energy subsidies over the past several years.
“Using the most cautious estimates, the facts are still clear. Four years of policies aimed at crippling domestic energy production for affordable sources like coal, oil, and natural gas have yielded higher electricity costs, more pain at the pump, and more federal regulations that drive up the price of energy. Meanwhile, taxpayers have been put on the hook for an explosive growth in renewable subsidies to fund Solyndra-style ventures, a disturbing number of which are closely tied to President Obama’s political and fundraising efforts,” AEA Director of Communications Benjamin Cole noted.
“Unemployment has grown by 43 percent in the last four years — from 5.8 to 8.3 percent this month. Meanwhile, per capital GDP has dropped by more than $1000, which means that Americans are spending a larger share of their income to keep the lights on, heat their homes, and commute to work. Gasoline prices have more than doubled since President Obama took office, and household energy expenses have jumped by 31 percent. The federal government is leasing less land for energy production, generating less revenue for U.S. taxpayers, and dispensing as much as 1000 percent more for renewable subsidies to bankroll intermittent, unreliable, and uneconomic sources.”
Some basic facts from AEA’s analysis of energy policies under President Obama:
- Taxpayer-funded biomass and biofuel energy subsidies have increased by 1731 percent — from $61 million to $1.1 billion
- Taxpayer-funded wind energy subsidies have increased by 947 percent — from $476 million to $4.98 billion.
- Taxpayer-funded solar energy subsidies have increased by 534 percent — from $179 million to $1.13 billion.
- The total cost of regulations have increased 49 percent — from $1.17 trillion to $1.75 trillion.
- The number of EPA regulations costing $100 million or more increased 40 percent — from 20 to 28.
- Total federal acreage under lease has decreased by 11 percent — from 47.24 million to 38.46 million.
- Total revenue from offshore lease sales has decreased by 100 percent (or 258 times lower) — from $9.48 billion to $36.75 million.
- The approval time from permit to drill on federal lands has increased 45 percent — from 212 days to 307 days.
- Total approved drilling permits on federal land has decreased 36 percent — from 6,617 to 4,244.
To download a hi-resolution version of the chart, click here.
To access the source material for the chart, click here.
###
In the Pipeline: 10/10/12
October 10, 2012 by Leave a Comment
Well now. The Obama crew favors a carbon tax. Governor Romney does not. Maybe the Romney campaign should make that difference more visible, obvious, and well-known. The Hill(10/8/12) reports: “An Obama campaign representative speculated Friday that the White House would consider a carbon emissions tax if Republicans were interested in negotiating — a political circumstance the surrogate cast as highly unlikely.”
And George Shultz favors a carbon tax. But in all fairness he did serve in the Nixon Administration. So, he is pretty much a Democrat anyhow (anyone remember wage and price controls?).ABC News (10/9/12) reports: “I think we ought to start by putting sources of energy on a level playing field. So I believe that we should put a revenue neutral tax on those pollutants, mainly carbon. I say revenue neutral to be sure that this is not something that causes a fiscal drag on the economy, it’s not a fundraising scheme, it’s just a method for causing all sources of energy to be on a level playing field.”
Chairman Upton (R-America) proves once again that he is the best chairman in this Congress. By joining Mike Pompeo (R-USMA) in calling for the elimination of all subsidies, he adds formidable capability to this fight. Michigan Live (10/9/12) reports: “Even in the end, more than a year later, the administration was prepared to do another $100 million of reinvestment to try to keep it afloat despite its sorry track record that the taxpayer ended up eating every dime on because the law was violated at the end. We don’t need subsidies like this particularly when taxpayers lose every dime in their pocket. I’m for putting all these on an even footing. Let’s look at the oil and gas subsidies and let’s take them away. Let’s let them compete just like everyone else at the same level.”
This surprises us. Usually the Chinese run the whole corrupt/crony/State-owned business thing better than we do.Renewable Energy World (10/9/12) reports: “New reports of a government-sponsored rescue package being assembled for for fast-sinking Suntech (NYSE: STP) and other major solar firms highlight everything that’s wrong with China’s struggling solar sector, most notably exposing the ridiculous levels of state report it receives. At this point the Chinese seem to no longer care about denying the allegations of unfair government support made by their western peers, and instead are focused on simple survival as the industry remains caught in its worst ever downturn created by a massive supply glut.”
Look, Senator, Governor Moonbeam (Jesuit “educated”) alerted everyone to the racket by waiving some regulations. It is you and your colleagues that create the pain at the pump. It is you and your colleagues that manipulate the market. It is you and your colleagues without scruples that victimize Californians. Senator Boxer (10/8/12) reports: “Californians have too often been victimized as unscrupulous traders have created or taken advantage of supply disruptions to drive up energy prices. We cannot allow market manipulation by those who would seek to profit off the pain of our families at the pump.”
This is the sort of thing you typically see in the death throes of a movement or idea. When it becomes clear that goals cannot be met, they are rationalized as movable, and what was once essential and necessary becomes optional and tangential. Climate Central (10/8/12) reports: “According to a new study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, however, this seeming inconsistency is not just unsurprising: it was inevitable. By focusing on the 2°C goal, negotiators inadvertently guaranteed that their efforts would fail, because there’s no hard evidence that any specific temperature target marks a dangerous threshold, with clear consequences for crossing it (instead, there is plenty of evidence that more and faster warming entails greater risks of major consequences, such as the collapse of the polar ice sheets). This uncertainty, the study argues, provides an incentive for countries to be free-loaders, jumping on board with the agreement without making potentially costly emissions reductions.”
David Kreutzer on EPA and Oil Externalities
October 9, 2012 by Leave a Comment
Sometimes in their zeal to exaggerate the “social benefits” of one of its programs, the number-crunchers at government agencies will stoop to absurd arguments that end up coming back to bite them. The Heritage Foundation’s David Kreutzer recently caught a great example of this, concerning the NHTSA’s and EPA’s analysis [pdf] of its new emission standards for light-duty vehicles. As Kreutzer points out, the agencies unwittingly made a great argument for increased domestic oil production.
EPA on Import Externality
Before explaining Kreutzer’s “gotcha,” we have to set up the context. On page 4-33 of its analysis, EPA/NHTSA feature the following table:
TABLE 4-11. Energy Security Premium in Selected Years (2009$/Barrel)
The numbers above show the estimates for the social cost per barrel of imported oil, because of the “energy security premium.” To break down the specific sources:
- “Monopsony” is the demand-side version of a monopoly. The claim here is that the U.S. is such a large buyer on the world oil market, if it could reduce the amount of oil it imports from abroad, then the world price of oil would fall. This in turn would shower benefits on the U.S., because the remaining imported oil would be cheaper. But if reducing oil imports would benefit the country, the flip side shows that maintaining oil imports carries with it a social cost above the price of the barrel itself. The table above shows that EPA estimates this external cost per barrel will be $11.12 in the year 2020.
- The “macroeconomic disruption / adjustment costs” refer to the economic dislocations caused by large swings in the world price of oil. To the extent that the U.S. could wean itself from foreign oil, the EPA analysis estimates that the social savings would be $7.10 per barrel in the year 2020.
We should be clear that the “energy security premium” estimated above does not include funding for the military, even though many people claim this is an added “negative externality” of oil imports. The EPA analysis acknowledged this widely held view, but declined to formally include it because of the difficulty in quantifying how much of the military budget should be allocated to the maintenance of oil imports.
Finally, we should note that although the table above adds up the two factors for a total energy security premium, the EPA/NHTSA analysis of the net benefits of the enhanced regulations on light-duty vehicles does not include the monopsony effect, because this is only a benefit to Americans. What they gain from reduced world oil prices, the net exporting countries (Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, etc.) lose by the same amount, meaning it is simply a transfer. (See page 4-37 of the report.)
To not lose sight of the big picture, let us recall the point of all this: The government agencies are trying to explain why tighter fuel economy and emission standards on light-duty vehicles are a good idea. So they are touting, among other alleged benefits, the “energy security premium” flowing from reduced oil imports when the American fleet becomes more fuel efficient.
Kreutzer’s Insight
Now that we know the context, we can quote Kreutzer’s simple yet damning point:
While the EPA does not explicitly say we should subsidize domestic petroleum production, the benefit of cutting imports—which are separate from whatever benefit there may be from cutting consumption altogether—can come from either cutting consumption or increasing domestic production.
The point is undeniable: If EPA is going to credit conservation programs with an “energy security premium” for every barrel of oil the U.S. no longer needs to import, then to be consistent they should do the same for proposals to expand drilling on federal lands. Yet, we don’t recall ever seeing such an “energy security premium” when the government analyzes the impacts of expanded drilling in ANWR or the Outer Continental Shelf.
Kreutzer takes matters further, and calculates what the “social cost of carbon” is, per barrel of oil, according to the government’s own numbers:
The whole purpose of (and legal underpinning for) these most recent CAFE standards is to cut CO2 emissions and the external costs they supposedly impose. Though far from a universally accepted number, according to the EPA, the external cost of CO2 is $22 per metric ton. So how much would this be per barrel of petroleum?
On page 4-45 of the JTSD, the EPA lists its estimate of CO2 released per gallon of gasoline (19.6 pounds) and diesel fuel (22.5 pounds). After adjusting for the greater use of gasoline, we get an average of about 20.4 pounds of CO2 per gallon, or 858 pounds (0.39 metric tons) per barrel.
Therefore, the perceived externality that so motivated the EPA, NHTSA, untold environmental activists, lobbyists, and legislators—and led to the 1,230-page regulation (not counting supporting documents)—works out to $8.58 per barrel (0.39 metric tons of CO2 per barrel times $22 worth of damage per metric ton of CO2).
Thus we have a very interesting juxtaposition. The EPA’s own numbers show that the negative externality from climate change (i.e. the social cost of carbon) is only $8.58 per barrel of oil, while increased domestic production of oil (which reduces imports, other things equal) has positive externalities to the whole world of $7.10 per barrel, and $18.22 if we focus just on Americans. In other words, according to EPA, even if we include the costs of global warming, America is better off by about $10 for every barrel of oil we produce domestically rather than importing. This benefit does not include the economic benefits to Americans that everyone knows about—increased jobs and increased American production, but comes just from EPA’s own estimates of the “positive externality” of an “energy security premium” more than offsetting the “negative externality” of climate change from greenhouse gas emissions.
As Kreutzer points out, the alleged negative externality from carbon emissions has been one of the motivating causes of our time, inspiring countless government regulations and public service campaigns. Yet the apparent “energy security premium” from enhanced domestic production is comparable or much greater, depending on how one frames the group.
Conclusion
In this post, we are not endorsing the calculations of an “energy security premium” nor are we arguing that there is a “positive externality” from domestic oil production, justifying a government subsidy. Rather, we are following Kreutzer in simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the government’s statistics and selective uses of economic theory. If the government thinks it makes sense to restrict car and truck producers and consumers by imposing tighter fuel economy and emission standards in order to reduce oil imports, then surely it makes sense to allow American firms to expand domestic oil production and reduce imports through that mechanism. After all, according to EPA there is an $18 a barrel “energy security premium” for Americans for each additional barrel of oil produced domestically.
In the Pipeline: 10/9/12
October 9, 2012 by Leave a Comment
It really is quite simple. More energy = more jobs.
Doubling down on the automobile mandate does make sense, if you are in favor of more deaths on the highway, a $3000 increase in the average price of a car, pricing millions out of the new car market, and limiting consumer choice. White House (10/8/12) reports: “On energy, I’m big on oil and gas, and developing clean coal technology, but I also believe that if we’re ever going to have control of our energy future, then we’ve got to invest in solar and wind and biofuels, and that it does make sense for us to double our fuel-efficiency standards on cars. And that’s not a socialist plot — (laughter) — for us to reduce our energy usage. It’s the smart thing to do. It’s right for our national energy. It’s right for our economy. It’s right for the environment.”
“Temporary” right? The subsidies have been in place for 20 years. People have been using wind to generate electricity for more than 100 years. And if this stuff is really cost competitive, why are we subsidizing it? WSJ (10/8/12) reports: “At a time of intense debate over the federal budget, government subsidies for wind and solar power are more contentious than ever. The question of whether those subsidies are justified has taken on fresh urgency with the looming expiration of a major wind subsidy.”
The Keystone XL Pipeline project, for those who may have forgotten, could replace all the crude we import from the Middle East. At least according to the Department of Energy. But the President is such a tightly held hostage (by the scarcity gang), that he will never approve it. The Romney crew should have an event every week on the project. AP (10/8/12) reports: “Mitt Romney’s administration on Day One would approve a pipeline that would run from Canada to U.S. refineries in Texas, creating thousands of jobs and pushing America on its way to energy independence, Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan said Monday.”
If regulations provide more benefits than costs, like our friends at EPA are always saying, wouldn’t the appropriate action here be to increase regulatory requirements, rather than waive them? Hasn’t Jerry Brown (“educated” by Jesuits, of course) just become part of the Big Oil machine (that claims regulations have, you know, costs) by this action? WSJ (10/7/12) reports: “Californians are grumbling about a gas price spike, which state officials blame on disruptions in the supply chain. Actually, they’re paying through the nozzle for their greener-than-thou government.”
Shocker. WAToday.com (10/8/12) reports: “ONE hundred days after the government introduced a carbon price, power bill increases are the one visible impact.”
Do you remember when the Democrats were the party that tried to help coal country? Bobby Kennedy and Bobby Byrd and those dudes? The American Spectator (10/8/12) reports: “There was a time, half a century ago, when Democrats stood firmly on the side of coal miners and enacted programs to help alleviate the cruel poverty that for so long plagued rural Appalachia. Now, under the control of environmentalists, the Democratic Party is the coal miner’s worst enemy and threatens Appalachia with a new kind poverty, even crueler for being the result of a deliberate policy. Folks in America’s coal towns have not yet lost hope, even as they have been betrayed by the president who famously promised Hope. The end of Obama’s war on coal may now be within sight, and the people of Coal Country could cast the deciding votes to end it.”