News

This is too fun to pass up. National Legal and Policy Center (9/26/12) reports: “Well, at least taxpayers’ money didn’t completely go to waste – we now know where in Connecticut to find an auto dealer who delivers at-your-doorstep electric car towing services with a smile. As for the $107,000 Karma, Consumer Reports found only a few other flaws that led it to rank it as the worst luxury sedan – and fourth-worst sedan overall – of those it has rated. And the magazine rates lots of cars.”

For those scoring at home, about 40 million people really die each year from starvation or malnutrition.  But here in the West, the rich folks would rather worry about exceedingly hypothetical deaths that may occur over the next 12 years rather than the actual deaths that will occur in the next 12 hours. Reuters (9/25/12) reports: “More than 100 million people will die and global economic growth will be cut by 3.2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2030 if the world fails to tackle climate change, a report commissioned by 20 governments said on Wednesday.”

Stop me if you’ve heard this before. NYTimes (9/25/12) reports: “As Tesla Motors, a maker of electric cars, burns through cash and misses production targets, it is turning to investors and taxpayers for extra financial help. On Tuesday, Tesla announced plans to sell five million shares to raise cash. The federal government agreed earlier to waive some conditions of a $465 million loan, easing pressure on the company over the next couple of quarters. The moves raised questions about the long-term viability of the company.”

We totally missed this yesterday, but the Romney crew should run commercials touting the EU “concerns”. The Guardian (9/25/12) reports: “EU officials are privately alarmed at the chilling effect that a Mitt Romney win in the US presidential election could have on global climate talks, EurActiv has learned.”

Remember this next time Denise Bode starts talking about how they “need” the PTC.  It allows wind “producers” to distort the market to their advantage. Laurel Outlook (9/26/12) reports: “But, “contrary to logic,” a surplus of energy continues to be produced. While one would expect to see a drop in production because of less demand, said Simonich, that has not happened because wind energy is subsidized by the federal government, which incentivizes producers to continue to produce despite market conditions. In fact, the industry is currently installing as much wind energy production as possible to meet a legislative deadline, after which it is uncertain whether wind energy will continue to be subsidized.”

So the CRS says that the amount of money taken in as a result of a carbon tax set at 20 cents per gallon is about the same as the federal excise tax on transportation fuels, which, coincidentally, is set at 18.4 cents per gallon.  Shocker.  What they did not say is how voters might feel about a doubling of the gas tax. E&ENews(9/26/12) reports: “The CRS report found that Congress could cut the federal deficit in half in 10 years by enacting a $20 per metric ton carbon tax that rises 5.6 percent annually. This prediction relies upon the Congressional Budget Office’s August estimate that the U.S. government would run a deficit of $2.3 trillion between 2012 and 2022. CBO has estimated that the carbon tax would raise $1.2 trillion over the next decade.”

The scarcity narrative is getting killed.  That’s good news for normal people.  But bad news for the “environmentalists”. Area Development (Fall 2012) reports: “The economic boom fueled by new natural gas drilling technologies has been stunning — some parts of the country barely noticed the Great Recession as they scrambled to find enough well-paid workers to extract shale gas from the ground. But what if that boom was just the tip of the economic-development iceberg? What if the gas boom turned out to be a catalyst helping to spark a much-needed rejuvenation in North American manufacturing?”

It looks like Pyle and Quinlan are unequivocally opposed to a carbon tax. Any other think tank heads care to put themselves in that category? We will post every Friday for any others who wish to put themselves in that camp. Forbes (9/23/12) reports: “With the economy sputtering toward what can at best be described as a meager recovery, it seems like an obviously poor time to consider raising taxes on any form of energy. That’s particularly true when it comes the gasoline which fuels not only our cars, but also the nation’s economic engine. Yet that is also precisely what an unholy coalition of big spending liberals and misguided conservative economists is proposing – to raise taxes on carbon and send the economy spiraling toward another recession.”

So let’s review.  Closing coal plants and increasing the price of electricity ostensibly because of global warming is OK.  Having rich folks pay a few extra bucks on their flights to Europe to fight global warming is not OK.  Tell me again under what circumstances a revolution is morally licit. CNBC (9/24/12) reports: “The Senate unanimously passed a bill on Saturday that would shield U.S. airlines from paying for their carbon emissions on European flights, pressuring the European Union to back down from applying its emissions law to foreign carriers.”

Every time a coal-fired power plant gets shut down in America, we’re one step closer to getting back on the boats for Europe. Bloomberg (9/21/12) reports: “European utilities are poised to add more coal-fired power capacity than natural gas in the next four years, boosting emissions just as the era of free carbon permits ends.”

Going to Extremes: Ed Markey and Henry Waxman are now (mad) scientists. Committee on Natural Resources (9/25/12) reports: “The United States and the world experienced a barrage of extreme weather events over the last several years consistent with what climate scientists have been predicting from global warming pollution. Indeed this summer, U.S. weather was almost apocalyptic: searing heat, ferocious fires, hurricanes, and severe storms left people injured, homeless and in some cases, dead.”

The politicians in Washington are a bunch of children who throw a temper tantrum every time a shiny new toy comes along. We’re trying to teach the virtue of patience. E&ENews (9/24/12) reports: “Congress has been juggling and unable to pass the “NAT GAS Act,” a package of tax incentives that would promote the conversion of autos from oil to natural gas. The legislation — commonly called the Pickens Plan — had long been hailed as a bipartisan approach to cutting U.S. oil dependence while promoting a cheaper and cleaner alternative fuel.”

It’s fun watching Rob tear down smokescreens. Forbes (9/24/12) reports: “At the Democratic National Convention, President Obama proclaimed that voters will face “the clearest choice of any time in a generation” on energy policy this November. If he were truly concerned about our energy future, though, he’d scrap his wasteful green-energy zealotry — along with his smokescreen slogan “all of the above.” Better policies are there for the taking.”

Does Dan Kish know anything about this? Forbes (9/24/12) reports: “Meanwhile, just as Beijing may be considering taking another stride toward a more market-based economy, President Obama wants to move the United States toward a more state-directed one. He does so, moreover, in the name of competing with China. It is one thing for ordinary citizens to make faulty policy judgments based on projecting a past growth trend too boldly into the future. Surely, a president should know better.”

Just as a rule, anything that these guys issue on a Friday is terrible.  This is no exception. Environment & Public Works (9/21/12) reports: “In typical EPA fashion, the agency released yet another late Friday afternoon statement – this time to inform us that Ron Curry will replace Al Armendariz of ‘crucify’ fame to oversee the largest oil and gas producing region in the country,” Senator Inhofe said.  “The timing of the announcement is the first red flag, and while I look forward to learning more about Mr. Curry, various public comments attributed to him raise concerns.”

The NYT discovers that the Internet runs on electricity. NYTimes(9/22/12) reports: “A yearlong examination by The New York Times has revealed that this foundation of the information industry is sharply at odds with its image of sleek efficiency and environmental friendliness… Most data centers, by design, consume vast amounts of energy in an incongruously wasteful manner, interviews and documents show. Online companies typically run their facilities at maximum capacity around the clock, whatever the demand.”

See, it is not really a loss for the utility.  It is a loss for the ratepayers of Idaho.  But I bet FERC, whose commissioners come from Nevada, Washington, North Dakota, Iowa, and Massachusetts don’t really care about that. KTVB (9/20/12) reports: “The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission says Idaho Power’s long-term purchase agreement with wind farms means that it must buy electricity from the farms even when demand for power is low.”

Government does not create jobs.  It simply moves them from one group to another.  In this case, it moves them from taxpayers to wind “developers”.  Oh, and somewhere along the way, the federal government takes its cut off the top, just to make sure the whole mess is as inefficient as possible.  Senator Wyden is an overseer of this process. Politico (9/23/12) reports: “It’s vital for Congress to lead on this issue. My home state is a good example of how wind energy can create jobs and help local communities — when government policies lead to successful investments.”

I’ll take my mandate medium rare, please. CBS Los Angeles (9/18/12) reports: ““For comparison, an 18-wheeler diesel engine truck would have to drive 143 miles on the freeway to put out the same mass of particulates as a single charbroiled hamburger patty,” said Bill Welch, the principle engineer.”