News - American Energy Alliance

In the Pipeline: 11/16/12

November 16, 2012 by AEA 3 Comments

Or, Nissan’s CEO realizes that trolling for taxpayer cash is a whole lot different than putting an attractive product on the road. Detroit News (11/15/12) reports: “As recently as October, Andy Palmer, Nissan’s executive vice president of product planning, said the automaker is not giving up on its plan to double electric vehicle sales, but that sales are not meeting expectations.”

So the good news is that the National Academy of Sciences got 350 million and the Fish and Wildlife Foundation got 2.4 billion. I guess they couldn’t figure out a way to funnel some of the money to unions or trial lawyers. Politico (11/15/12) reports: “BP will pay a record $4.5 billion in fines and plead guilty to a dozen felony counts under a deal with the U.S. government to settle criminal charges stemming from the 2010 Deepwater Horizon accident that killed 11 workers and spilled nearly 5 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.”

These wise words are certainly chicken soup for my soul. Orange County Register (11/14/12) reports: “The temperature after imposition of cap-and-trade, the Kyoto Protocol or a carbon tax will be whatever it would have been without any of them. So, while a new energy tax may be chicken soup for the wealthy world’s environmental guilt, as a substantive matter, it is a futile gesture.”

So, I guess the message here is that the mandate is not a particularly good idea. Beacon Hill Institute (November 2012) reports: “Over the period of 2013 to 2021, the [renewable energy standard] will cost Missourians an additional $4.47 billion over conventional power, within a range of $2.06 billion and $6.87 billion… Missouri’s electricity prices will increase by an average of 1.27 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh), or by 14.8 percent, in 2021, within a range of 46 cents per kWh, or by 5.3 percent, and 1.97 cents per kWh, or by 23 percent. Costs for customers of investor-owned utilities, such as Ameren, will be higher… By 2021 Missouri will lose an average of 6,065 jobs, within a range of between 2,185 jobs under the low-cost scenario and 9,450 jobs under the high-cost scenario… In 2021 the RES will reduce disposable income by $675 million, within a range of $245 million and $1.055 billion… and Investment in the state will decrease in 2021 by $75 million, within a range of $27 million and $116 million.”

More battery failures are coming. Alt Energy Stocks (11/15/12) reports: “Exide is closing certain facilities for the sake of reducing costs. The company has been historically profitable, although it did report a net loss of $106.5 million on $693.4 million in sales in the June 2012 quarter, after establishing a valuation allowance for future tax allowances of $87.6 million. Exide has produced positive operating cash flow in each of the last five fiscal years at a rate averaging 3.4% of total sales.”

Does anybody really think that a carbon tax is going to be an alternative to regulation? Does anybody really think that a carbon tax is going to be revenue neutral? Renewable Energy World(11/15/12) reports: “Exxon Mobil Corp. is part of a growing coalition backing a carbon tax as an alternative to costly regulation, giving newfound prominence to an idea once anathema in Washington.”

What great news! 35 billion in savings, taken right off the top of a trillion dollar monstrosity. Because nothing says fiscal sanity more than limiting deductions for taxpayers while loading up the goodies for “farmers”. Politico (11/15/12) reports: “House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas said Thursday that he had been assured by Speaker John Boehner that the farm bill remains part of the year-end “big picture” for Republicans and the promise of $35 billion in 10-year savings “has gotten somebody’s attention.””

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
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: A123, carbon tax, Farm Bill, renewable energy standard

In the Pipeline: 11/14/12

November 14, 2012 by AEA 1 Comment

After decades of government interference, capitulation, inaction, stupidity, and outright lies, the U.S. will soon return to its rightful place as the number one energy producer in the world. Man, I want to be a fly on the wall at the Sierra Club, CAP, NRDC, Defenders, 350, and Al Gore’s private jet and/or mansion on that very special day. Bloomberg (11/12/12) reports: “U.S. oil output is poised to surpass Saudi Arabia’s in the next decade, making the world’s biggest fuel consumer almost self-reliant and putting it on track to become a net exporter, the International Energy Agency said.”

Try to remember that the President talked about running the most transparent Administration in history. Of course, Secretary Geithner also had trouble with his taxes, so, not everything works out like it should. Washington Examiner (11/12/12) reports: “A conservative Washington think tank will file suit Tuesday seeking to force Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to make public more than 7,300 internal emails circulated in recent months among senior executives in his department about a carbon tax proposal officials say taxpayers don’t need to know about.”

The author of this document was Terry Dinan. She spent yesterday with her pals at AEI trying to figure out how to sell this disastrous idea. Congressional Budget Office (November 2012) Working Paper: “For example, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found that a policy that set a price of $28 per metric ton on CO2 emissions (roughly $103 per ton of carbon) would impose a cost of $425 dollars per year on the average household in the lowest income quintile and a cost of $1,380 per year on the average household in the highest income quintile (note that those annual costs were measured based on the size of the economy in 2010). That cost would account for 2.5 percent of after-tax income for the average household in the lowest income quintile, compared with less than 1 percent of after-tax income for the average household in the highest quintile.”

The automobile mandate will not save money, not reduce oil consumption, and not reduce carbon dioxide emissions. What it will do is increase the cost of a car by an average of $3200 (according to EPA), result in more deaths, price six or seven million people out of the new car markets, and expand the scope and power of a rapacious government. NYTimes (11/11/12) reports: “For the United States, some of the best recent steps serve to save money, promote energy security and reduce air pollution. A good model is provided by rules from the Department of Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency, widely supported by the automobile industry, which will increase the fuel economy of cars to more than 54 miles per gallon by 2025.”

Norquist: ‘No conceivable way’ carbon tax matches pledge. Politico(11/13/12) reports: “Don’t even think about supporting a carbon tax, Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist told congressional Republicans on Tuesday. Norquist blasted out a statement saying a carbon tax would almost certainly violate the pledge many Republicans took at his group’s behest not to raise taxes.”

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: carbon tax, CO2 emissions, Environmental Protection Agency, oil, US oil production

Hurricane Sandy and Gas Lines: Regulations Lead to More Problems

November 13, 2012 by AEA Leave a Comment

In the wake of Hurricane Sandy, government officials in New Jersey and New York interfered with the energy sector and made a bad situation much worse. By threatening to crack down on “price gouging,” the authorities crippled the ability of the market to respond to the emergency shortage of gasoline. Now, faced with the disastrous consequences of their initial policy, the authorities are upping the ante by cracking down all the harder. The whole sordid episode is a textbook example of the problems of government regulations on the energy sector.

Elsewhere I have explained in comprehensive detail why price controls are hurting the residents of New Jersey and New York. In a nutshell: When the hurricane struck, the supply of gasoline was severely curtailed. Because bridges and ports were damaged, it was hard to cart in additional supplies, and even much of the gasoline physically in the region couldn’t be accessed, because the power was out at many of the gas stations.

At the same time, the demand for gasoline went up. This was because of the natural human desire to hoard in the wake of the storm, but also because the subways and trains were knocked out. (This meant more people had to drive to work than before the storm hit.) Put the two together: The supply went down, while the demand went up. Thus, the market-clearing price should have risen significantly.

Alas, the wise authorities in New Jersey and New York didn’t want to let market prices do their job. They warned retailers not to “price gouge.” The consequence was predictable—and I’m not bluffing when I say that, because I literally in my economics textbook (Chapter 17) talked about shortages resulting from price controls after a hurricane—that people would have to line up at the pump. This underscores the basic economics point that it’s not Hurricane Sandy per se causing gas lines. No, it was the government response with price controls causing the lines.

As with most government regulations, once the authorities decided to prevent market prices from rationing the available supply among the motorists who wanted to buy it, they needed to deal with the undesirable consequences. For example, both in New Jersey and then New York City, the government instituted license plate restrictions, where only half of the motorists on a given day are eligible to buy gas. This just added insult to injury; imagine all of the thousands of people who may have needed to get gas on a Wednesday (for example) but now were legally forbidden from doing so.

To magnify the absurdity even more, now the New York State Attorney General is investigating individuals posting ads on Craigslist offering to sell gasoline at “unconscionable” prices. Thus, the very people who are alleviating the shortage—by driving to outer regions and bringing in new gas, or by giving up some of the gasoline that they may have stockpiled before the storm hit—are being punished by the authorities.

The lessons from this episode should be clear. Government intervention in the energy sector achieves the exact opposite of its intended effect. Thinking they were helping with the gasoline shortage, government officials actually exacerbated the problem. Then, seeing the long lines that their own policies had created, the officials introduced yet more arbitrary rules (the license plate rationing). And a final lesson: Fans of the free-market must not blame everything on “liberal Democrats.” In this case, it was the allegedly conservative New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, as well as the allegedly pro-business Mayor Bloomberg, leading the charge against the free market.

Filed Under: News, Products and Power, Threats Tagged With: economics 101, gas lines, gas shortages, hurricane sandy, New Jersey, New York, price gouging, supply and demand, unintended consequences

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