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: 10/26/12

October 26, 2012 by Leave a Comment

Whether you’re a high school student, a union guy working at the refinery, or a United States Senator, the bus is a symbol of opportunity and a better energy future for us all. 

 

Senator Jim DeMint signs the American Products and Power bus. 

 

Why am I not surprised that EPA does not have a definition of “savings/cost avoidances?” Washington Examiner (10/24/12) reports: “Environmental Protection Agency officials will spend in excess of $8 billion this year, but they will apparently do so without a working definition of “savings/cost avoidances” or a way of calculating if they’ve achieved any,” according to the agency’s Inspector-General.”

 

Freedom. Opportunity. Enterprise. Carbon Taxes. At least now the meetings are out in the open. Let the moral case for the largest, most regressive tax increase in American history begin! AEI (October 2012) reports: “The pros and cons of introducing a carbon tax in the US are the topic of many spirited debates, yet discussion of the consequences from alternative tax designs remains largely confined to academia… In an effort to shed more light on this topic and its budgetary impact, AEI, the Climate and Energy Economics Project at the Brookings Institution, the International Monetary Fund, and Resources for the Future are cohosting a conference to discuss ideas for US carbon tax design and options for the potential use of carbon tax revenues.”

 

I don’t get it.  Why isn’t Sachs headlining AEI’s big coming out of the closet carbon tax festival? The Australian (10/25/12) reports: “But Jeffrey Sachs, a professor at Columbia University and adviser to the United Nations Secretary General on its Millennium Development Goals, says Australia’s implementation of the tax has set a good example for the world… Sachs, Director of Columbia’s Earth Institute, warned on Thursday against calls for the tax to be replaced by a tradable permit system by carbon emitters.”

 

I wonder if GAO is going to think about which industry sectors are net taxpayers and which pay no taxes (net) to the federal government. The Hill (10/25/12) reports: “Waxman is asking congressional auditors to broaden a study requested by Committee Chairman Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), arguing that Upton’s proposal would allow billions of dollars in taxpayer support for oil companies to escape review.”

 

Marlo Lewis is a stone cold killer. Forbes (10/25/12) reports: “The only thing Republicans would gain from destroying their bona fides as the anti-tax, pro-energy party is faint and fleeting praise from cocktail party ‘progressives’ and the liberal media. If Republicans consider that a good bargain, they deserve to be called the stupid party.”

 

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 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: , , ,

McDermott’s Carbon Tax Bill Is Worst of All Possible Worlds

October 24, 2012 by 2 Comments

An August analysis from Capital Alpha explores Rep. Jim McDermott’s carbon tax bill introduced late in the summer. The proposal calls for an initial $25 per ton tax on carbon, which quickly escalates to a capped fine of $525 (!) per ton by the year 2024. The Capital Alpha report is fairly evenhanded and speaks mostly of political trends, rather than endorsing or criticizing the proposal. Yet in so doing, the report fails to point out the numerous ways in which the McDermott bill would be economically devastating.

The Capital Alpha analysts summarize the most obvious harm upfront when they write:

McDermott’s bill establishes a fixed carbon price that escalates rapidly from a minimum of $25 per metric ton…in 2015 to…$525 per ton in 2024. At this price, the carbon tax on a gallon of gasoline would be $5.20…the tax on average residential use of gas-fired electricity for one year would be $1131.90, the tax on heating a home with oil for one winter would be $3262.38, and revenues raised for the federal government in 2024…would be $2.4 trillion.

The man on the street can understand that the above figures are scandalous, but it’s interesting to note that standard economic models of climate change also indicate that McDermott’s proposal is a cure worse than the disease. Indeed, perhaps the world’s expert on the subject—and a strong supporter of a carbon tax—William Nordhaus has argued (as of the 2007 runs of his computer models) that the “optimal” carbon tax should be a mere $53/ton in the year 2025. A carbon tax of $525 represents an incredible overkill—even if we stipulate the “consensus” physical science and mainstream economic modeling of climate change. McDermott’s proposal would cause literally many trillions of dollars of damage to the economy, in excess of the environmental gains that the mainstream scientists discuss. (See Tables 3 and 4 in this paper discussing Nordhaus’ respected model.)

Yet it gets worse. McDermott and even the Capital Alpha analysts are touting the claim that because some of the new carbon tax’s revenue would be used to reduce the corporate income tax, that therefore it won’t “hurt the economy.” This claim is wrong for several reasons.

First, McDermott isn’t going to “recycle” all of the funds—he explicitly calls for 25% of the revenues to be used for “deficit reduction.” Think about what that means. The government is going to take in more money via a carbon tax, and some of it is going to be used to make the deficit smaller than it otherwise would be. Simply put, the government is going to spend 25% of the carbon tax on its various programs. It is a tax hike pure and simple, because the government has been spending more than it takes in through other taxes. Recall that by their own estimate, the Capital Alpha analysts think the government might take in some $2.4 trillion (using a static analysis which doesn’t account for the reduction in driving, home heating, etc. in response to the immense new tax). A quarter of that is $600 billion, just in the year 2024 alone. Even by McDermott’s own promises, that is a net tax increase. This will hardly promote economic growth or ease the burden on corporations.

Second, even of the remaining 75% of the funds, the McDermott plan doesn’t call for them all to be used to reduce other taxes. Instead, they would be sent directly to Americans in order to ease the burden of higher energy prices. Although this sounds equivalent to lowering taxes, it isn’t. The distortions caused by taxes on corporations and individuals go above and beyond the mere dollars extracted. By reducing the incentive to earn income in the first place, a punitive tax code discourages productive activity. By sending a lump-sum check to taxpayers, while keeping the marginal rates on other taxes the same, the supply-side boost to the economy is mitigated even further.

Finally, even if 100% of the carbon tax revenues were devoted dollar-for-dollar to reducing other taxes, the best economic analysis argues that there would be a net drag on the economy. Proponents could argue that the environmental benefits outweighed the loss in conventional economic growth, but McDermott and analysts of his proposal should stop claiming that it is a win-win for the environment and the economy. On the contrary, it is a clear lose for jobs, economic growth, and poorer households who suffer the brunt of higher energy prices.

In conclusion, Jim McDermott’s proposed carbon tax flies in the face of the standard results in the economics of climate change. Even supporters of a carbon tax—at least those familiar with the literature—would have a hard time justifying the incredibly aggressive tax rate in the bill. Technical issues aside, it would be very naïve to take the bill’s proponents seriously when they claim the funds will be used to reduce other taxes, or that the government won’t ramp up its spending because of the new money.

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

In the Pipeline: 10/24/12

October 24, 2012 by Leave a Comment

We have been preaching this gospel for some time.  So have the folks at House Energy and Commerce. Energy & Commerce (10/23/12) reports: “Unconventional oil and gas production could support up to 3.5 million jobs by 2035 according to a new study released today by IHS Global Insight. This new study, America’s New Energy Future: The Unconventional Oil and Gas Revolution and the Economy, complements previous IHS research on the economic impacts of unconventional oil and gas production made possible by hydraulic fracturing technology. In addition to its job creation potential, the report finds shale energy production will help boost government revenues, reduce chronic deficits, and help revive American manufacturing.”

 

Their carefully crafted myth of scarcity is about to completely unravel. Podesta, Browner, Gore, Pope, McKibbon, Weiss, Et. al. will certainly blow a gasket when the U.S. overtakes Saudi Arabia in oil production. And we’re not even drilling on federal lands at the moment.  FuelFix (10/23/12) reports: “U.S. oil output is surging so fast that the United States could soon overtake Saudi Arabia as the world’s biggest producer.”

 

Let’s make it simple.  The Obama crew, through regulation, is impairing assets in the coal industry – railroads, mines, power plants.  The utility MACT has lots of costs, and just about no benefits associated with reducing mercury.  So when the President tells you he loves the coal industry, take another look at the record. That is all. USAToday (10/24/12) reports: “Coal advocates say the Obama administration is pursuing costly new regulations on mines and on power plants that burn coal will be a devastating blow to the industry… “If there’s less coal being demanded, especially certain types of coal, that certain jobs are required for, then you are going to reduce” mine employment, said Dan Kish, senior vice president of the Institute for Energy Research.”

 

Think about this when we start talking about coal exports next year. We can either export our products or our people. It is just that simple. WSJ (10/23/12) reports: “Charles Stella has struck blue-collar gold: a mining-industry job in Western Australia… The 31-year-old boilermaker from Pittsburgh is one of the relatively few American workers who have been picked to pluck and process minerals in such remote regions and under such demanding conditions that wages for even driving a truck have climbed north of six figures.”

 

We offer this because it is difficult to keep track of the failures. Green Corruption (10/20/12) reports: “UPDATE: New calculations, October 23, 2012: 23 bankrupt, 27 troubled, equals a new “Obama green-energy failure” list total of 50. At least $15 billion of “green” taxpayer money is either gone or still at risk, and the majority was funneled to Obama and Democrat cronies –– percentage of cronyism is hovering around 60% (29 of the 50), until I have time to dig further.”

 

We missed this last week.  That is okay, because the writer missed the number one reason why people with a brain might oppose a carbon tax – it solves nothing. National Review (10/19/12) reports: “Jim’s arguments persuaded me that a carbon tax is not as attractive an idea as environmentalists tend to think, particularly in light of the compromises that would be involved in practice. Like David, however, I wouldn’t rule out a domestic carbon tax, though not for the reason he offers (i.e., to give a boost to green technology). Rather, I think a small carbon tax could be justified on public health grounds.”

 

Seriously?  We can hardly wait for the depositions to start. Watts Up With That (10/23/12) reports: “Today, the case of Dr. Michael E. Mann vs. The National Review and The Competitive Enterprise Institute was filed in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. Dr. Mann, a Professor and Director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, has instituted this lawsuit against the two organizations, along with two of their authors, based upon their false and defamatory statements accusing him of academic fraud and comparing him to a convicted child molester, Jerry Sandusky.”

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

In the Pipeline: 10/23/12

October 23, 2012 by Leave a Comment

It is very rare indeed when AEA thinks the Denver Post gets it right.  Please read carefully, because it may never happen again. Denver Post(10/22/12) reports: “We can think of at least four major reasons why Longmont voters should reject Question 300, a ban on hydraulic fracturing within city limits… 1. The courts will almost certainly overrule it. As recently as 1992, the state high court said Greeley could not impose a “total ban on the drilling of any oil, gas, or hydrocarbon wells within the city limits.” Yet given modern practices, a ban on fracking is nearly equivalent to a total drilling ban.”

 

Speaking of Longmont, Colorado, it turns out it was founded by a bunch of rich guys from Chicago.  And we thought it was just the proximity to Boulder that made them crazy. TimesCall.com (10/20/12) reports: “Opponents of Ballot Question 300, which asks Longmont voters to ban hydraulic fracturing and storage of waste in city limits, have a host of reasons for not supporting a fracking ban, including protecting the rights of mineral rights owners, the threat of multiple lawsuits and the costs to the city associated with them, the strength of protections provided by the city’s agreement with TOP Operating and that the city’s charter is not the place for such a ban.”

 

Guys like Rob probably make the guys over at a place like AWEA very nervous. Huffington Post (10/22/12) reports: “Just about everyone talks about energy efficiency. Well, energy-versus-energy dueling in Washington, D.C. is energy inefficiency on stilts. How about some political conservation instead? With government more restrained, voluntary consumer decisions would pick winners and losers. The massive D.C. energy money game would shut down. Surely this is a win-win for the 99 percent.”

 

This is the type of change we believe in. 

 

 

For everyone who is worried about China, don’t be.  They can be every bit as corrupt, ridiculous, and non-sensical as our government. Reuters (10/20/12) reports: “China is working on policies, including subsidies and easier access to the grid, to help its ailing solar power producers expand in the domestic market, the China Daily reported on Saturday, citing industry officials and government sources… The State Grid Corp, China’s largest state-owned utility, is considering giving its subsidiaries at city level the authority to approve solar power plants with less than 10,000 kilowatts of installed capacity to be connected to the grid, said deputy director Meng Xiangan.”

 

We offer this with no comment. Toronto Sun (10/21/12) reports: “The idea that windmills will save the Ontario economy is the kind of wisdom you might pick up down at the local hemp shop. But wherever the idea came from, it has yet to power Ontario forward. Unemployment in too many cities sits in double digits even as turbines spin in that wayward wind. But even if subsidized wind energy hasn’t powered the mighty Ontario job creation machine, it has been jet fuel for Ontario deficits. According to the McGuinty government’s own projections, Ontario’s debt will eclipse $300 billion sometime in the next three years.”

 

Well, this can’t be good news. Manufacturing.net (10//12) reports: “Siemens AG says it plans to give up its solar business and concentrate its renewable energy business on wind and hydroelectric power… The German industrial conglomerate said Monday that it’s in talks with possible buyers, but offered no details. It said the move is part of a wider effort to increase its productivity and efficiency.”

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: , , , ,

PREBUTTAL: AEA FACT CHECKS 3RD PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE

October 22, 2012 by Leave a Comment

WASHINGTON D.C. — The American Energy Alliance released today its first-ever prebuttal of a presidential debate, complete with analysis to arm American viewers with the facts necessary to sort through the rhetoric of tonight’s exchange between President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney.  Tonight’s debate — which focuses on foreign policy — is scheduled for 9PM EST, and will take place in Boca Raton, FL. Legendary CBS correspondent Bob Schieffer will moderate this third, and final presidential debate of the 2012 cycle.

Prebuttal Debate Facts:

  • Under Vladimir Putin, Russia is increasing its oil production to record levels due, in large part, to that country’s aggressive use of multi-zone hydraulic fracturing technologies to boost recovery rates in mature oil fields in Western Siberia. While Russian oil companies are using hydraulic fracturing to increase oil production, the United States — which pioneered the technological breakthroughs that led to this practice — is looking to lower oil and gas production and increase costs through new regulations on hydraulic fracturing. Click here to read more.
  • The United States imported an average of 869 thousand barrels of oil per day from Venezuela during the first 6 months of this year. Venezuela currently ranks fourth as supplier of U.S. oil imports. Revenues from Venezuelan exports are widely credited for Hugo Chavez’s recent re-election and low energy prices in that country. Meanwhile, President Obama has denied the Keystone XL pipeline, which could bring as much as 830 thousand barrels of oil to U.S. refineries along the Gulf Coast that currently service Venezuelan crude brought by tanker. Is America’s national interest better served by increased trade with Venezuela or Canada? Click here to read more.
  • The United States increased its dependence on oil imports from the Persian Gulf during the first five months of this year. In that time, U.S oil imports from the Persian Gulf increased by 33 percent compared with the same period in 2011. Oil imports from Saudi Arabia increased by 29 percent. The Persian Gulf’s share of U.S. oil imports is up 6 percentage points — from 15 percent for the first 5 months of last year to 21 percent for the first 5 months of this year. The U.S. could be almost independent of overseas oil within 15 years if positive steps were taken to utilize North American energy resources. Click here to read more.
  • As a way to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions at lower cost, the creators of the Kyoto Protocol devised the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), which allows net GHG emissions to be reduced at a lower global cost by financing emissions reduction projects in developing countries. China has been the major beneficiary of the program, having received funding for projects that represent almost 64 percent of the registered Certified Emissions Reductions, totaling 619,078,094 metric tons of carbon dioxide annually. These CDM projects will help China towards its goal of producing 15 percent of its energy from “clean energy” by 2020. However, the CDM designers are not getting the reductions they have paid for because many of China’s wind units are not connected to the electricity grid. Click here to read more.
  • Coal consumption in the United States is contracting rapidly while growing as the fuel of choice in the global economy. The decline in U.S. coal consumption is offset by a large increase in Asia’s coal consumption, which accounted for all the net growth in 2011. China’s coal consumption grew 9.7 percent between 2010 and 2011, and India’s coal consumption increased 9.2 percent. China consumed 49 percent of the world’s coal supply in 2011. Coal has been used in the United States since 1850 and has been the work horse of the electric power sector for decades, generating about half of our nation’s electricity. But onerous regulations are harming the coal industry and shuttering coal-fired power plants across the country. Click here to read more.
  • Canadian production of oil sands in northern Alberta is expected to reach 4.1 million barrels a day by 2020, up from last year’s production level of 1.6 million barrels per day. The Canadian government understands that the regulatory review process is too convoluted, too long, and too expensive. Canada’s provincial governments, led by Alberta in the 1990s, cut taxes, slimmed government, and created a stable investment climate in order to encourage energy development. The United States is headed in the opposite direction. Click here to read more.
  • A key ingredient for windmills and battery-powered cars is rare earth elements. Currently, 97 percent of these essential resources are supplied by the Chinese. Two rare earths, dysprosium and neodymium, are needed for the generators and motors of electric vehicles and wind turbines. They have configurations of electrons orbiting their nuclei that result in very powerful magnetic properties, but the U.S. does not mine rare earth minerals despite having large deposits. Environmental regulations closed down the last rare of the United States’ rare earth mines.  By 1999, 90 percent of rare earth elements needed by U.S. industry came from Chinese sources. Policy decisions in Washington that promote the use of these “green energy” sources without opening up domestic sources of rare earths necessary to make them only serve to make the U.S. more dependent on China.  Click here to read more.

To read AEA’s 2012 Candidate Comparison Chart, click here.

Filed Under: Press Releases Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,

Do Voters Want to Pay More For Energy?

October 22, 2012 by Leave a Comment

 

A recent Grist article was elated over the apparent lack of voter knowledge on the Solyndra issue, and celebrates poll results showing Americans support “clean energy” initiatives. But ironically, the writer who is complaining about dishonesty himself quotes a Solyndra critic out of context to utterly change the meaning of his statement. Furthermore, the Grist article ignores all of the much stronger poll results showing that Americans aren’t willing to pay more for any of these pet projects.

First let’s see how the Grist writer distorts the words of a Solyndra critic:

When the solar manufacturing company Solyndra went bankrupt last September after receiving a $527 million loan guarantee, it sparked a politically motivated congressional investigation into the White House’s handling of the program — an “investigation” that critics admitted would “stop on election day.”

Now doesn’t that seem odd? A critic of the DOE loan program openly admits that the investigations into Solyndra would “stop on election day”? Even if this were merely a political issue, why would the politicians involved be so dumb as to say it openly?

In fairness, the Grist writer is simply repeating the inaccurate summary given by the E&E reporter on those fateful words. Here is the full context of the four-word phrase, taken from the E&E story linked by Grist:

In an interview after as he left yet another hearing in which Energy Secretary Steven Chu testified about the controversial loan program for clean energy companies, Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio said that — smoking gun or not — Republicans are finding value in drawing attention to the more controversial aspects of the loan guarantee program.

“Our staff will continue to dig into it and see,” Jordan said. “But what I hope happens is we stop doing these kind of things … this whole cronyism approach to the marketplace.

“Ultimately, we’ll stop it on Election Day, hopefully. And bringing attention to these things helps the voters and citizens of the country make the kind of decision that I hope helps them as they evaluate who they are going to vote for in November.”

So although the E&E reporter (and the Grist writer) see Jim Jordan here “admitting” that the Solyndra hearings are merely an election ploy, in fact what he’s hoping will “stop” is “this whole cronyism approach to the marketplace.” In other words, Jordan was hoping that the voters would reject candidates who favored Solyndra-type programs. If Jordan were referring to the Republican-led investigation, he wouldn’t have said “hopefully”; he and his colleagues had the power to stop the investigation after Election Day for sure (no hoping involved), if it were merely a political stunt. So here the E&E reporter and Grist writer are inventing an unflattering interpretation of Jordan’s statements when that’s obviously not what he was saying.

But now on to the Grist writer’s enthusiasm for polls:

Despite the millions of dollars spent on Solyndra-related television spots over the last five months, polls show that a majority of American voters still don’t know about the company or are indifferent.

An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll from early October showed that 58 percent of registered voters are unaware of Solyndra…

A day earlier, Hart Research released a poll…showing that 67 percent of registered voters are either indifferent about Solyndra or have heard nothing recently about the company. At the same time, 70 percent of voters said they would support more government incentives to help develop the solar industry.

In addition, an April poll from the Pew Research Center found that 52 percent of Americans believe that “alternatives” to fossil fuels are the most important energy priority for the country…

For starters, it is hardly news that many Americans don’t know about Solyndra; in a 2006 survey, 43% of young adults couldn’t find New York State on a map. If they were first given a brief outline of all the corruption and inefficiency in the Solyndra debacle, many more of them would surely object to the program.

Yet the fundamental problem with the Grist approach is that Americans famously support all sorts of feel-good government programs yet don’t want to actually pay for them. Consider a Washington Post / Stanford University poll [.pdf] conducted in June 2012. It found:

  • 74% opposed “the federal government increasing taxes on electricity so people use less of it.”
  • 71% opposed “the federal government increasing taxes on gasoline so people either drive less or buy cars that use less gas.”

Thus, it is clear that Americans are not willing to actually pay more for energy, even though this is what just about everybody recognizes will be necessary, in order to reduce the U.S. “carbon footprint” significantly in the near-future.

Americans need much more education on energy issues, it’s true. But the more they understand the waste of the DOE loan program, and the more they recognize that “alternative energy solutions” actually mean higher electricity and gas prices in practice, large majorities of them will reject government intervention and let the market choose.

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

In the Pipeline: 10/22/12

October 22, 2012 by Leave a Comment

You know, this isn’t really a story of overreach, misjudgment and disappointment.  It is a story about stupidity, corruption, and the nascent fascism of an ever-larger government.  Oh, it is also a story about complacent and lazy media elites failing to do their jobs. NYTimes (10/18/12) reports: “The period around 2003 was the golden spring of green technology. John McCain and Joe Lieberman introduced a bipartisan bill to curb global warming. I got my first ride in a Prius from a conservative foreign policy hawk who said that these new technologies were going to help us end our dependence on Middle Eastern despots. You’d go to Silicon Valley and all the venture capitalists, it seemed, were rushing into clean tech… From that date on the story begins to get a little sadder.”

 

Speaking of which, we wonder if David Brooks is ‘sad’ that his tax dollars are paying for people to play cards at a federally funded electric car battery plant.  Must be a hard swallow to realize the ‘golden spring of green technology’ has just been a poker game all along, and the government stacked the deck against the American people. Washington Examiner (10/19/12) reports: “Workers at a Michigan electric car battery making firm that got millions of federal economic recovery funds have so little to do that they sit around playing cards, watching movies and reading magazines according to a local television news report.”

 

EPA says that the new automobile mandates will raise the average price of a car by 3200 dollars.  That it will price 6 to 7 million people out of the new car market.  That to realize any economic advantage at all, the price of gasoline will have to be $6.00 per gallon for the life of the car.  The National Academy of Sciences has said that the last round of mandates resulted in as many as 2500 deaths a year.  Other than that, we think this is a great idea. NYTimes (10/20/12) reports: “Yes, the costs for cars with higher miles per gallon will rise a touch, but the savings will be manyfold that amount. The Environmental Protection Agency projects families will save $1.8 trillion in fuel costs and reduce oil consumption by 2.1 million barrels per day by 2025, which is equivalent to one-half of the oil that we currently import from OPEC countries every day.”

 

The reason why people hate Washington?  Because it is jammed with hypocrites. Cryptome (11/12/08) reports: “Friedman explains his own ecological circumstances – geothermal heating, solar panels – he invites readers…to regard his real-estate move as an act of rescue…which could sound like someone buying a lot of champagne to protect society from cork-related injuries.”

 

Fred Siegel is right.  But George McGovern was still a great American (35 combat missions in WWII). ArgusLeader.com (10/21/12) reports: “To critics, McGovern’s rise helped polarize the nation’s political institutions. His ascendancy in 1972 expressed the polarization that emerged in the 1960s over Vietnam, race riots and the civil rights movement, said Fred Siegel, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, a conservative think tank, and a scholar on American liberalism.”

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: , , ,

You Can Thank a Coal Miner

October 19, 2012 by Leave a Comment

Filed Under: Multimedia

FACT CHECK: IER Examines Obama/Romney Energy Claims

October 19, 2012 by Leave a Comment
During the town hall presidential debate in Hempstead, New York on Oct. 16, 2012, Governor Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama squared off on many issues, and energy policy was one of the most contentious of the evening. Energy policy deserves a comprehensive, fact-based national conversation. The Institue for Energy Research (IER} has analyzed the responses of both candidates and has fact checked their statements during last night’s debate.
  • Gas prices have doubled under the Obama administration, in part because costly EPA regulations have forced refineries to close and more closures are likely.
  • Total federal oil production (both onshore and offshore) declined by 13 percent between FY2010 and FY2011, while oil production on non-federal lands increased 11 percent.
  • Natural gas production fell by 16 percent between FY2008 and 2011, despite the fact that natural gas production is the highest it has been since 1949.
  • Coal production dropped 6.5 percent between 2008 and 2011. For the first 8 months of this year, coal production is almost 5 percent lower than the first 8 months of last year.
  • Job losses associated with the closure of EPA-targeted coal units could amount to more than 50,000 direct jobs and more than 250,000 indirect jobs.
  • The Obama administration’s increased fuel efficiency standards are estimated to increase the average cost of a vehicle by $3,000 and cut 7 million car buyers out of the new vehicle market.

To read the full document, click here.

###

Filed Under: News, Products and Power

In the Pipeline: 10/19/12

October 19, 2012 by Leave a Comment

Coal: It’s what’s for dinner. AEA (10/19/12) reports: “The American Energy Alliance traveled to West Virginia with the “American Products. American Power.” bus tour and met with the hardworking coal miners that keep the lights on for the rest of America. Bill Raney, President of the West Virginia Coal Association, describes in this video just how important coal is for our daily lives.”

 

 

More movie fun for a Friday morning . This time, petrochemicals are for dinner. 

 

The product and power of our lives

 


Does anyone know what déjà vu means? Heritage (10/18/12) reports: “A solar company that got a multi-million-dollar grant from the Department of Energy earlier this year announced Wednesday that it will file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, making it the second taxpayer-backed green energy company to file for bankruptcy this week. “

 

Earlier in the week, Scott was warning about an energy tax.  Now, he offers a couple of arguments against it.  Next, he will send both the article and his editorial around to his customers.  This town can make one cynical. Atlanta Journal-Constitution (10/18/12) reports: “Third, carbon taxes aren’t fair; in fact, they are regressive. Those living at or near the poverty level, or on fixed incomes, tend to pay the largest share of their monthly incomes for energy. Therefore, an energy tax — which a carbon tax most certainly is — makes those in society least able to afford it pay the most. While some argue that a portion of the carbon tax could be rebated to offset this impact, don’t bet on it. Conservatives who allegedly support carbon taxes insist on revenue neutrality, meaning cutting corporate rates to offset the revenue raised by the carbon tax. That means no money for rebates. Or for deficit reduction, for that matter.”

 

AEI keeps talking about that carbon tax like it is going to be part of some great big regulatory deal.  They are wrong. E&ENews (10/18/12) reports: “He does, however, also have some baggage that could prove problematic in the confirmation process, particularly in satisfying the GOP’s conservative tea party wing… For example, Connaughton has defended his work to address climate change while at CEQ, which included efforts to facilitate the transfer of low-carbon technology between countries… Green noted that Connaughton and his team were criticized by some conservatives for “being willing to go along with heavier-handed regulation than they had to.”

 

What can you say?  The Republic is probably finished. Washington Times (10/17/12) reports: “Just outside San Antonio, at the intersection of Look 1604 and Highway 151, the discovery of a single, dime-sized, translucent, subterranean spider has brought a $15 million traffic reduction project to a dead stop. Unfortunately for area motorists, the Bracken Cave meshweaver is one of more than 1,400 species regulated under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).”

 

Heads of think tanks* who are publically 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

*For now, we’re keeping it simple and focusing on heads of think tanks with this list. If you’d like to join the list or you think you might know someone who would, please contact [email protected].

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