May 11, 2008

Cap-and-Trade: The Public Recognizes Failure

From The Independent:

More than seven in 10 [British] voters insist that they would not be willing to pay higher taxes in order to fund projects to combat climate change, according to a new poll.

The survey also reveals that most Britons believe "green" taxes on 4x4s, plastic bags and other consumer goods have been imposed to raise cash rather than change our behaviour, while two-thirds of Britons think the entire green agenda has been hijacked as a ploy to increase taxes.

They have good reason to be suspicious. The European Union has implemented a cap-and-trade system akin to the Lieberman-Warner legislation the Senate will soon consider, and the program is an expensive failure -- certainly not reducing emissions. As a report from the London-based Open Europe think-tank reports,

As the cross-party Commons Environmental Audit Committee noted: “there is little or no evidence that Phase I is leading to any cutbacks in actual emissions at all, whether in the UK or elsewhere in the EU.” In its first year of operation (2005 to 2006) emissions covered by the ETS rose 3.6% in the UK, and rose by 0.8% across the EU as a whole.

Neil O'Brien, a director with Open Europe, appears on this week's "America's Business with Mike Hambrick," explaining how cap-and-trade actually subsidized pollution in countries like China and India at a cost of billions of Euros. To hear his sgement, click here.

(Hat tip: Andrew Stuttaford)

Posted by Carter Wood at 12:21 PM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

May 7, 2008

Is There Any Catastrophe He Won't Politicize?

Concerned, callous or shameless? You make the call.

Al Gore on NPR's "Fresh Air"

“And as we’re talking today, Terry, the death count in Myanmar from the cyclone that hit there yesterday has been rising from 15,000 to way on up there to much higher numbers now being speculated,” Gore said. “And last year a catastrophic storm from last fall hit Bangladesh. The year before, the strongest cyclone in more than 50 years hit China – and we’re seeing consequences that scientists have long predicted might be associated with continued global warming.”

So was the cyclone in China 50 years ago also caused by global warming?

Burma's annual population growth is 0.8 percent. Over the past three decades, its population has about doubled, to more than 47 million today. We contend that a correlation exists between high fatalities and increased population density in low-lying areas.

(Hat tip to the Business and Media Institute.)

Posted by Carter Wood at 8:41 AM | 1 comment; click here to read it or submit your own! | Send to a Friend

May 6, 2008

A Role Model on Global Warming

MSNBC reports on an English girl visiting the North Pole to make a point about global wa....hey, are those penguins? From Ed Morrissey.

Posted by Carter Wood at 2:31 PM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

A Sista Souljah Moment on Energy

From the AP:

ANCHORAGE, Alaska -- Alaska Native and environmental groups sued Monday to stop exploration by oil companies this summer in Arctic waters frequented by whales, seals and other marine species.

The groups are challenging federal permits that allow Shell Oil Co. and BP PLC to search for oil and gas using powerful acoustic devices that have been shown, at times, to harm a variety of marine animals. The technology, known as seismic exploration, is used to determine the geologic makeup of the sea bed.

"The federal government is rushing to approve a burst of new seismic activity without completely studying the effects on marine life," said attorney Clayton Jernigan of Earthjustice. The Juneau-based law firm filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Anchorage.

The oil companies have been cast as villains during the recent presidential campaigns for supposedly profiting too much and causing high gas prices. It's a cynical play designed to take advantage of public anger of high gas prices.

Might we respectfully suggest to the candidates that they look to other sources of the problem(s), such as environmental groups that prevent access to domestic energy supplies, the "energy insecurity" crowd.

How brave, how politically defining it would be for a candidate to repudiate one or more of the environmental groups who restrict demand and make the United States more dependent on foreign oil. Tell these obstensible supporters how much damage they're causing.

A Sista Souljah moment for the 2008 campaign: Rebuke the greens.

Posted by Carter Wood at 9:45 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

May 3, 2008

Today's Weather in Lewiston

From the Lewiston Tribune, reprinted at SFGate.

Posted by Carter Wood at 2:35 PM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

May 2, 2008

Cap-and-Trade: Cap the Economy, Trade the Jobs

From Medill Reports (i.e., Northwestern's graduate school of journalism), a thorough story on the costs of climate-change legislation and regulation, "Manufacturers blast new climate bill."

While proponents of the America’s Climate Security Act, or Lieberman-Warner bill, have said trades and auctions of pollution allowances would minimize costs, manufacturing officials contend the legislation would inflate energy prices and operating costs, crimping demand at home and making U.S. companies less competitive overseas.

“You’re going to have prices driven up dramatically,” said Keith McCoy, a spokesman for the National Association of Manufacturers in Washington, D.C. “With these short timelines, coal-based utilities will have to switch to natural gas. That’s a very valuable commodity for manufacturers, and the price will get bumped up.”

Posted by Carter Wood at 9:28 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

The Polar Bear: Heck of a Marketing Device

An e-mail came into our computer yesterday, one of the occasional communications we receive from We Can Solve It, a nice, soothing-colors group, the friendly face of Al Gore's wrath.

The pitch? Contact the Secretary of Interior and urge him to protect the polar bear. And give us your e-mail address while you're at it.

And a persuasive argument, it is:

The Bush Administration has until May 15 to decide whether to place the polar bear on the Endangered Species list. Tell Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne that the polar bear, and its fragile Arctic habitat, requires protection from the effects of global warming. Sign the petition today.

"Mr. Secretary, please ensure that the polar bear gains the protection of the Endangered Species Act today."

As Thomas Dolby would say, "Science!"

UPDATE: (7:29 a.m.): We Can Solve It is sponsoring today's NPR "Morning Edition" program, according to the announcement at the bottom of the hour. UPDATE (2:45 p.m.): "Climate Change to Worsen L.A. Traffic, Says NPR President"

Posted by Carter Wood at 7:23 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

May 1, 2008

Polar Bears: Dangerous, But Not Endangered

The Heritage Foundation's Foundry Blog has a useful summary today of the real state of the polar bear and the politically motivated sillineness of trying to list the animal as an endangered species.

Environmentalists are in their normal state of righteous frenzy over the Department of Interior’s continued deliberations on whether or not to list the polar bear as “endangered” pursuant to the Endangered Species Act. Responding to a California judge’s decision ordering Interior to make their decision by May 15, Natural Resources Defense Council’s Andrew Wetzler said, “The science is absolutely unambiguous that the polar bear deserves protection.” The Center for Biological Diversity’s Kassie Siegel added: “The science is perfectly clear. There’s no dispute. The polar bear is an endangered species.” This rhetoric is 100% typical of the environmental movement. All scientists agree with us. There is no debate. Politicians need to conform to our agenda or we’ll all soon die. The problem in this case is that someone forgot to tell the Canadians.

An independent committee of scientists told the Canadian government last Friday that the polar bears are not, in fact, threatened or endangered. The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada did give the bears a “special concern” status, though, Canada’s weakest classification. Chairman Jeffrey Hutchings announced: “Based on the best available information at hand, there was insufficient reason to think that the polar bear was at imminent risk of extinction.” Hutchings went on to explain that the polar bears were facing threats from over-hunting and oil and gas development, but that the current modeling is not reliable enough to determine exactly what impact global warming is having on the bear.

There's more.

Posted by Carter Wood at 10:16 AM | 2 comments; click here to read them or submit your own! | Send to a Friend

Polar Bear as a Stalking Horse...Or Red Herring

A federal judge has ordered the EPA to determine whether to list the polar bear as an endangered species by May 15th, delighting those who would limit human activity -- including energy development -- in vast reaches of America's arctic. It's another example of environmentalist and anti-energy activist attempting achieve their goals not through the political or public policy process -- where the extreme agenda would fail -- but through the courts.

Law professor and radio talk-show host Hugh Hewitt has been an effective and impassioned advocate for environmental policies that recognize man's place in the world. His most recent post on the topic:

I have written about the effort to back door Kyoto via the polar bear listing push here and here. The impact of a decision to list the bear would be vast, and the costs to the economy only dimly perceived even by the industries which would be immediately impacted. The short summary is that any activity that leads to the emission of greenhouse gases and requires a federal permit would immediately be subject to a new level of permitting and federal review (and demands for "mitigation") under Section 7 of the ESA.

If the petition to list is rejected, the environmental groups that generated more than 600,000 comments in favor of the listing will sue. If the bear is listed, the environmental groups will start suing to push the most expansive interpretation of the law.

Ordinarily the chaos that follows a listing is limited to the region a species inhabits. The polar bear controversy will dwarf all previous ESA smash-ups, whether the snail darter, the delta smelt, the California gnatcatcher or the spotted owl.

Posted by Carter Wood at 7:54 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

April 30, 2008

Four out of Four: Legislation COSTS

The Department of Energy released its analysis of the Lieberman-Warner Climate change bill late yesterday. The study shows that under this bill in 2030 the high cost scenario would drive natural cost prices up 40 percent to almost $19/mcf and electricity generation up 34 percent to almost $12/kWh. This comes on the heels of other studies of the bill performed by the EPA, MIT and the NAM and ACCF that also show devastating economic consequences of this legislation.

Senator Domenici said it best:

4 out of 4 major studies now agree--Lieberman Warner will increase energy costs and decrease economic growth. At a time when Americans are increasingly concerned with the rising costs of energy and the state of the economy, it is rather shocking that Congress would seriously consider measures which will send us on the wrong track on both.

NAM press release on the study available here.

Posted by Keith Smith at 3:11 PM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

The Hot Air Tour Launches

Americans for Prosperity, a free-market, small-government advocacy group with many state chapters, is launching its national hot air balloon tour in Kansas City today, highlighting the costs of climate-change legislation. (Relaunching? There was a D.C. event on April 21.) There's a website: HotAirTour.org, and the basic point:

“Elected officials at all levels of government are converting global warming alarmism into policies that will have devastating consequences for our economy,” said AFP President Tim Phillips. “We think American families need to know what these proposals will cost them – lost jobs, higher energy prices, and less freedom. We’re launching this Tour to educate citizens on unaffordable climate change schemes.”

Bon voyage!

Posted by Carter Wood at 11:14 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

April 29, 2008

Environmentalists Hate Solar Energy, Too

OK, OK -- just some environmentalists. But as this entry in the Wall Street Journal's "Environmental Capital" blog details, California is afflicted with many, many people who like the idea of solar power in the abstract, it's just that actual getting it to the consumers who might use it that's unacceptable.

The L.A. Times reports that California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is throwing his support behind a proposed 150-mile transmission line that would partially run through a state park. Gov. Schwarzenegger pressed the case in a December letter to California’s public utility commissioner Dian Grueneich, though the decision won’t be made until this summer. The “Sunrise Powerlink” would link solar power plants in the Colorado Desert with San Diego—but wold also mean hulking high-transmission towers snaking through a state park enjoyed by a million visitors a year.

It’s hardly a local phenomenon. From Texas to Scotland, new clean energy projects that might disrupt wildlife habitats (or vacation views) have become an internecine battleground among green warriors. Fighting climate change by adding renewable energy is good; but upsetting pristine landscapes is unconscionable.

At what point does NIMBY become NIABY, Not in Anyone's Back Yard?

Related thoughts at The Chilling Effect.

Posted by Carter Wood at 8:48 AM | 1 comment; click here to read it or submit your own! | Send to a Friend

April 27, 2008

The Real Agenda

In today's Washington Post Book World, "Heating System," a review of "The Bridge at the End of the World: Capitalism, the Environment, and Crossing From Crisis to Sustainability," by James Gustave Speth.

In Speth's view, the accelerating degradation of the Earth is not simply the result of flawed or inattentive national policies. It is "a result of systemic failures of the capitalism that we have today," which aims for perpetual economic growth and has brought us, simultaneously, to the threshold of abundance and the brink of ruination. He identifies the major driver of environmental destruction as the 60,000 multinational corporations that have emerged in the last few decades and that continually strive to increase their size and profitability while, at the same time, deflecting efforts to rein in their most destructive impacts.

"The system of modern capitalism . . . will generate ever-larger environmental consequences, outstripping efforts to manage them," Speth writes. What's more, "It is unimaginable that American politics as we know it will deliver the transformative changes needed" to save us from environmental catastrophe. "Weak, shallow, dangerous, and corrupted," he says, "it is the best democracy that money can buy."

Too bad I-94 has reopened in Minnesota. Once again, commerce flows.

Posted by Carter Wood at 5:27 PM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

April 25, 2008

Complaining Doesn't a Scandal Make

Yesterday in the post "Anatomy of a Beltway Takedown" we reported on how an environmental activist group, the Union of Concerned Scientists, "entrusted" a Washington Post reporter with a story, which begot congressional hearings, and successfully turned a policy dispute about Endangered Species Act listings into a Washington, D.C., "scandal" that drove an official from her job. Outrageous. Typical.

This week the Union of Concerned Scientists released a new survey making similar claims about the Administration "politicizing science," citing EPA staffers who said their work was being interfered with. Struck us as a whole lot of nothing, anonymous staffers objecting to people disagreeing with them. But given the environmentalist group's ability to network like-minded Capitol Hill types, we concluded, "Let's see how this one becomes a scandal."

Here you go.

These survey results suggest a pattern of ignoring and manipulating science in EPA's decisionmaking. At May's hearing, the Committee will examine one apparent example of this disturbing trend: EPA's recent revision of the national air quality standards for ozone. You should also expect members of the Committee to ask about these survey results and other evidence of political interference with science at EPA.

That's from a letter from House Oversight Committee Chairman Henry Waxman to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson. (Copy of the letter here.)

We'll see what happens next. Would guess subpoenas for this or that.

Posted by Carter Wood at 9:45 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

April 23, 2008

Dark and Cold, the World Without Coal

We Americans are caught up in one of our periodic frenzies of enthusiasm, this one about global warming and most of the emphasis seems to be on phasing out coal-fired power plants. The only problem is that we get half of our electricity from coal and it would take a very long time to wean ourselves away from it. Wind power and alternative fuels offer promise for the future – the very distant future – but we depend on coal now and will for a long time. Today few coal-fired generating plants are being built and the supply is running low. Soon we will begin to see brownouts and then blackouts. When you flick the switch and the lights don’t come on, when you turn on the air conditioning and nothing happens, the price of this enthusiasm will become clear.

One of the more persuasive arguments against shutting down coal fired power plants is that the Chinese are opening two new ones every week and have already passed us in terms of carbon dioxide emissions. Today’s New York Times has a front page story that Europe also is revving up the coal power.

Enthusiasm and lofty environmental aspirations are just peachy but the question that remains is what good will it do us – and the global climate – if we sacrifice our economy while the rest of the world continues its merry way.

Posted by Hank Cox at 4:57 PM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

April 21, 2008

Polar Bears Also Ambivalent

From the Gallup Poll:

PRINCETON, NJ -- While 61% of Americans say the effects of global warming have already begun, just a little more than a third say they worry about it a great deal, a percentage that is roughly the same as the one Gallup measured 19 years ago.

Despite the enormous attention paid to global warming over the past several years, the average American is in some ways no more worried about it than in years past. Americans do appear to have become more likely to believe global warming's effects are already taking place and that it could represent a threat to their way of life during their lifetimes. But the American public is more worried about a series of other environmental concerns than about global warming, and there has been no consistent upward trend on worry about global warming going back for two decades. Additionally, only a little more than a third of Americans say that immediate, drastic action is needed in order to maintain life as we know it on the planet.

What? You mean Snoop Dogg's performance at the Live Earth concert failed to persuade anybody?

In any case, some advertising firms have some explaining to do. After spending millions upon millions of dollars trying to move public opinion on global warming, they have zilch to show for it. Maybe because the product they're selling is just not believable.

Posted by Carter Wood at 2:16 PM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

April 20, 2008

Hype It Up, Shut It Down, but Truth Will Out

Funny how President Bush announced his generally well-considered principles on global warming legislation the same week that authors were in Washington, D.C., highlighting the hype, scientific abuses and media credulity/complicity on misrepresenting climate change.

We've already noted the event with Christopher Booker and Richard North on their book, "Scared to Death," which disposes of various hypesterical phenomena.

On Friday, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Cooler Heads Coalition hosted a Capitol Hill briefing with Larry Solomon, author of "The Deniers." The Chilling Effect blog covered the event in this post, noting that Solomon is an environmentalist who believes “there is a possibility that it is a potential threat, but the evidence hasn’t been there.” And that IPCC shibboleth?

Who are those 2,500 scientists the UN relies on to generate respect for its climate scares? When Solomon tried to find out, the UN told him those names are not public. Moreover, those 2,500 were reviewers, NOT endorsers who reviewed one or more of the 100’s of background studies!

Solomon is concerned that “the press has been taken, taken in by a big lie. This big lie has been told to us for 15 years now.”

Solomon noted a quirk of the international agency, IPCC, which generates so much fear-mongering: IPCC only looks at man-made causes, so only man-made causes will be found.

More on Solomon's appearance at Planet Gore and The American Spectator.

One of his major concerns? Critics, questioners and "deniers" are smeared and silenced. A definite concern as we head toward the June consideration of Lieberman-Warner cap-and-trade: Will there be a full and fair debate or just more bullying?

Posted by Carter Wood at 1:19 PM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

À la Recherche du Woodstock Perdu

John J. Miller dares to look out the window and state the obvious: It's raining.

It rained here last night, it's pouring down rain right now, and it's supposed to rain all day long today and probably tomorrow as well.

A few minutes ago, my wife and I were watching the local news. They did this live report from downtown DC, where there's supposed to be some kind of big Earth Day concert on the National Mall. The promoter of the event is holding an umbrella as she's being interviewed. Water is running off its edge. She's probably standing in a pool of mud. Yet she urges people to come on down for the concert today. "It's beautiful down here!" she insists.

Uh, no it's not.

I have some sympathy for those who plan big outdoor events only to have the weather ruin them. But how are we supposed to trust these people on climate change if they can't even tell the truth about what's happening right on their own heads?

Posted by Carter Wood at 12:32 PM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

April 18, 2008

Vodcast: Scared to Death

On this week's video podcast of "America's Business with Mike Hambrick," we hear from the two authors of a new book, "Scared to Death -- From BSE to Global Warming: Why Scares Are Costing Us the Earth." Christopher Booker and Richard North recount the media-fueled, government-sanctified scares that ruin companies, burden the economy and scare people to death -- for little reason. The latest example of this phenomenon cited by this British pair? The fear that the world faces disaster from man-made global warming. It's evidently chickentown.

For more on America's Business and to listen to the full radio program, please visit www.americasbusiness.org.

Posted by Carter Wood at 3:45 PM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

President Bush's Principles on Global Warming

We let the President's announcement of Administration principles pass without notice yesterday on the blog, mostly because they were so measured, reasonable and well laid-out. Not much to add. The environmental left screamed and accused people of bad faith, but you could serve them a wonderful breakfast with eggs benedict, mush melon and mimosas, and they'd scream and accuse you of bad faith.

The National Association of Manufacturers did issue a statement from President John Engler that was also measured, reasonable and well laid-out, and you can read it here.

And the Wall Street Journal's editorial yesterday was right on the mark. With abdication of responsibility becoming an art form in the world of policy and politics this year, President Bush's effort to link rhetoric to action to economic consequences was welcome. From "Carbon Shakedown."

Mr. Bush also went after the Democrats and green activists ginning up a regulatory crisis. Judicial interventions and political pressure are forcing regulators to retrofit existing environmental laws to incorporate global warming – costly purposes for which they were never intended.

This effort has been appalling even when graded on the usual Congressional curve of self-interest and buck-passing. Democrats want to take credit for crowd-pleasing goals while shifting the blame for the costs achieving them onto unaccountable bureaucrats. But if a cap-and-trade program really is coming, then lawmakers should, well, make laws.

The White House deserves credit for playing the political hand in front of it. It would have been easy enough to abdicate responsibility to the next occupant of the Oval Office, who will be far more likely to wave aside economic considerations in the interests of "doing something."

Posted by Carter Wood at 9:15 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

April 16, 2008

The President on Global Warming Principles

The White House has sent out excerpts from President Bush's prepared remarks. We've put his entire statement in the extended entry below. Here's the intro:

This afternoon the President will deliver a statement in which he sets a new intermediate national goal for stopping the growth of greenhouse gas emissions. The President’s announcement comes as this week’s Major Economies Meeting in Paris begins to lay the groundwork for the world leaders’ climate meeting to be held in conjunction with the upcoming G-8 Summit.

The President’s remarks will also inform the Senate-scheduled debate on climate change legislation. In addition, the President will emphasize the importance of decisions on climate change regulation being openly debated and made by the elected representatives of the people rather than unelected regulators and judges.

That final emphasis is welcomed, because it is only through a thorough, informed and honest public policy debate that we can assess the real costs and consequences of global warming policies. Assess, and influence and correct mistakes, too.

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

________________________________________________________________

For Immediate Release April 16, 2008

EXCERPTS FROM THE PRESIDENT’S

REMARKS ON CLIMATE

As Prepared for Delivery

This afternoon the President will deliver a statement in which he sets a new intermediate national goal for stopping the growth of greenhouse gas emissions. The President’s announcement comes as this week’s Major Economies Meeting in Paris begins to lay the groundwork for the world leaders’ climate meeting to be held in conjunction with the upcoming G-8 Summit.

The President’s remarks will also inform the Senate-scheduled debate on climate change legislation. In addition, the President will emphasize the importance of decisions on climate change regulation being openly debated and made by the elected representatives of the people rather than unelected regulators and judges.

Following are excerpts from the President’s statement, as prepared for delivery:

On the principles for effectively confronting climate change:

Over the past seven years, my Administration has taken a rational, balanced approach to these serious challenges. We believe we need to protect our environment. We believe we need to strengthen our energy security. We believe we need to grow our economy. And we believe the only way to achieve these goals is through continued advances in technology.

I have put our Nation on a path to slow, stop, and eventually reverse the growth of our greenhouse gas emissions. In 2002, I announced our first step: to reduce America’s greenhouse gas intensity by 18 percent through 2012. I am pleased to say that we remain on track to meet this goal even as our economy has grown 17 percent.

When I took office seven years ago, we faced a problem. A number of nations around the world were preparing to implement the flawed approach of the Kyoto Protocol. In 1997, the United States Senate had passed a resolution opposing this approach by a vote of 95 to zero. The Kyoto Protocol would have required the U.S. to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The impact of this agreement would have been to limit our economic growth and shift American jobs to other countries while allowing major developing nations to increase their emissions. Countries like China and India are experiencing rapid economic growth which is good for their people and good for the world. But this also means that they are emitting increasingly large quantities of greenhouse gases which has consequences for the entire global climate. So the United States has launched, and the G8 has embraced, a new process that brings together the countries responsible for most of the world’s emissions.

On the new goal:

In support of this process, and based on technology advances and strong new policies, it is now time for the U.S. to look beyond 2012 and take the next step. We have shown that we can slow emissions growth. Today, I am announcing a new national goal: to stop the growth of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2025.

To reach this goal, we will pursue an economy-wide strategy that builds on the solid foundation we have in place. As part of this strategy, we worked with Congress to pass energy legislation that specifies a new fuel economy standard of 35 miles per gallon by 2020, and requires fuel producers to supply at least 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel by 2022. This should provide an incentive for shifting to a new generation of fuels like cellulosic ethanol that will reduce concerns about food prices and the environment. We also mandated new objectives for the coming decade to increase the efficiency of lighting and appliances.

Taken together, these landmark actions will prevent billions of metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions from entering the atmosphere.

To reach our 2025 goal, we will need to more rapidly slow the growth of power sector greenhouse gas emissions so that they peak within 10 to 15 years, and decline thereafter. By doing so, we will reduce emission levels in the power sector well below where they were projected to be when we first announced our climate strategy in 2002. There are a number of ways to achieve these reductions, but all responsible approaches depend on accelerating the development and deployment of new technologies.

On the problem of outdated regulations being applied to climate change:

As we approach this challenge, we face a growing problem here at home. Some courts are taking laws written more than 30 years ago to primarily address local and regional environmental effects, and applying them to global climate change. The Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act were never meant to regulate global climate change. For example, under a Supreme Court decision last year, the Clean Air Act could be applied to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles.

If these laws are stretched beyond their original intent, they could override the programs Congress just adopted, and force the government to regulate more than just power plant emissions. They could also force the government to regulate smaller users and producers of energy from schools and stores to hospitals and apartment buildings. This would make the federal government act like a local planning and zoning board, and it would have crippling effects on our entire economy.

Decisions with such far-reaching impact should not be left to unelected regulators and judges. Such decisions should be debated openly and made by the elected representatives of the people they affect. The American people deserve an honest assessment of the costs, benefits and feasibility of any proposed solution.

On the wrong way and the right way for Congress to approach climate change legislation:

This year, Congress will soon be considering additional legislation that will affect global climate change. I believe that Congressional debate should be guided by certain core principles and a clear appreciation that there is a wrong way and a right way to approach reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Bad legislation would impose tremendous costs on our economy and American families without accomplishing the important climate change goals we share.

The wrong way is to raise taxes, duplicate mandates, or demand sudden and drastic emissions cuts that have no chance of being realized and every chance of hurting our economy. The right way is to set realistic goals for reducing emissions consistent with advances in technology, while increasing our energy security and ensuring our economy can continue to prosper and grow.

The wrong way is to jeopardize our energy and economic security by abandoning nuclear power and our Nation’s huge reserves of coal. The right way is to promote more emission-free nuclear power and encourage the investments necessary to produce electricity from coal without releasing carbon into the air.

The wrong way is to unilaterally impose regulatory costs that put American businesses at a disadvantage with their competitors abroad which would simply drive American jobs overseas and increase emissions there. The right way is to ensure that all major economies are bound to take action and to work cooperatively with our partners for a fair and effective international climate agreement.

On technology as the key to addressing climate change:

We must all recognize that in the long run, new technologies are the key to addressing climate change. But in the short run, they can be more expensive to operate. That is why I believe part of any solution means reforming today’s complicated mix of incentives to make the commercialization and use of new, lower emission technologies more competitive.

First, the incentive should be carbon-weighted to make lower emission power sources less expensive relative to higher emissions sources, and it should take into account our Nation’s energy security needs.

Second, the incentive should be technology-neutral because the government should not be picking winners and losers in this emerging market.

Third, the incentive should be long-lasting. It should provide a positive and reliable market signal not only for the investment in a technology, but also for the investments in domestic manufacturing capacity and infrastructure that will help lower costs and scale up availability.

On putting America on an ambitious new track for greenhouse gas reductions:

If we fully implement our strong new laws, adhere to the principles I’ve outlined, and adopt appropriate incentives, we will put America on an ambitious new track for greenhouse gas reductions. The growth in emissions will slow over the next decade, stop by 2025, and begin to reverse thereafter, so long as technology continues to advance.

The strategy I have laid out today shows faith in the ingenuity and enterprise of the American people – and that is one resource that will never run out. I am confident that with sensible and balanced policies from Washington, American innovators and entrepreneurs will pioneer a new generation of technology that improves our environment, strengthens our economy, and continues to amaze the world.

# # #

Posted by Carter Wood at 1:16 PM | 1 comment; click here to read it or submit your own! | Send to a Friend

Anticipating the White House on Global Warming

As we await the President's new strategizing on global warming, we note Chairman John Dingell's insight as reported in today's The Hill.

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.) said Tuesday that he is no longer contemplating a “carbon tax” as a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

“Times have changed; our economy has taken a hard downward turn and now is not the time for us to put any additional financial burden on the working families of Michigan or this nation,” Dingell said.

And a very exercised Iain Murray looks at the economics and politics in this post in The Corner.

As I said, this is just so unnecessary. The President is right that activist litigation has forced his agencies into a regulatory nightmare - and things will only get worse if his own Interior Secretary decides to list the Polar Bear as endangered thanks to climate change. What he should be doing is telling Congress in no uncertain terms that the activists have twisted the Clean Air Act, Endangered Species Act and National Environmental Protection Act to breaking point by their use of them as a vehicle for global warming activism and that therefore Congress should fix those Acts so they can't be used so inappropriately again. As for emissions, the problem lies with Congress and Congress should debate among itself what to do, without any direction from the President. Siding with those who call for a mandatory emissions target does not help that debate.

P.S. Much unhappiness at Planet Gore.

Posted by Carter Wood at 10:07 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

April 13, 2008

MD: Making Renewable Energy Not a Reality

From the Baltimore Sun's review of the 2008 General Assembly, that is, just-passed legislation:

Lawmakers approved a package of administration bills to reduce the state's energy consumption 15 percent by 2015 and to double the amount of renewable energy that power companies must provide for sale to customers, to 20 percent by 2022.

And from the Baltimore Sun, "Gov. confirms wind turbine ban."

Gov. Martin O'Malley confirmed yesterday that his administration will not allow commercial wind turbines on state forest land, ending a heated four-month debate.

"While we must continue to explore and make progress on creating a more sustainable and independent energy future for Maryland, we will not do so at the expense of the special lands we hold in the public trust," the Democratic governor said.

What is that term about holding two mutually exclusive thoughts at the same time?

Posted by Carter Wood at 6:51 PM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

April 11, 2008

CBO Confirms: Lieberman-Warner, Expensive

The Congressional Budget Office has issued a cost analysis of S. 2191, the Lieberman-Warner cap-and-trade climate-change bill. Among the conclusions: The costs to the private sector would violate limits set by law under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

Which is to say, great googly moogly! From the CBO budget estimate:

The most costly mandates would require certain types of private-sector entities to participate in the cap-and-trade programs for GHG emissions created by the bill. CBO estimates that the cost of those mandates would amount to more than $90 billion each year during the 2012-2016 period, and thus substantially exceed the annual threshold established in UMRA for private-sector mandates ($136 million in 2008, adjusted annually for inflation).

We'll be interested in the reaction from command-and-control crowd on the environmental left: Attack the methodology or just ignore this study? We're guessing the latter.

More from CQ Politics here, with this interesting summary: "The Congressional Budget Office concluded that the bill would increase overall federal revenues by $1.21 trillion between 2009 and 2018, although the net increase would be just $78 billion after new spending was factored in." Another way of looking it that is, the federal government is taking that much -- $1.21 trillion -- out of the economy, the pockets of businesses, consumers and taxpayers, and directing its use. It represents a huge expansion of government control over our daily lives.

Posted by Carter Wood at 2:22 PM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

If the Environmentalists Had Their Way ...

The U.S. Forest Service has released new rules to govern the development of management plans for the federal lands the government agency controls. Environmental activists are outraged and accusing the Administration of bad faith. Well, of course they are. (New York Times story; Associated Press story.)

With the new U.S. Geological Survey study out about the 4.3 billion barrels of oil that may lie in the Bakken Formation of North Dakota, we're reminded of another controversy in which outraged environmental groups denounced the U.S. Forest Service. Back in the late '90s, the Forest Service proposed a 10-year management plan for the Dakota Prairie National Grasslands, a plan that would have significantly restricted existing ranching operations and future energy development on these federal lands in western North Dakota. (Not pristine land, we note; much had been settled and farmed at some point and then abandoned in the Dust Bowl years.)

The plan satisfied no one, as these plans tend to do. Ranchers legitimately saw an attack on their way of life, and the oil and gas industry protested the increased costs to develop existing claims and the blocking of vast acreage to any future energy use.

Meanwhile, national environmental groups like the Sierra Club were horrified, saying the plan did almost nothing to protect the unique resources -- always unique -- and crown jewel of this and that. More restrictions! More limits! No development! Above all, more wilderness designations!

No one was satified with the final management plan, naturally. Nevertheless, the energy sector appeared to have reached a modus vivendi with the federal management plan, and oil and gas development continues on the federal land in Western North Dakota -- environmentally sensitive, heavily regulated and monitored development, but the energy can still be accessed.

Underneath much of the western portion of the Dakota Prairie Grasslands is the Bakken Formation, confirmed yesterday by the U.S. Geological Survey as a resource of tremendous potential -- the largest continuous oil accumulation ever assessed by the USGS.

And if the environmentalists had had their way when the Forest Service developed its national grasslands management plan, much of that Bakken resource would be off-limits -- blocked from development or made prohibitively expensive, prevented from being part of the solution to America's energy needs. The investment into accessing Bakken oil would have gone to Kamchatka, Kazakhstan or Angola -- if anywhere.

The grasslands history and the Bakken Formation's tremendous potential make it clear that the goals of the mainstream environmental movement cannot be reconciled with achieving energy security, that is, real, economical energy security, as opposed to the magical, mystical, utopian kind.

More...

Jamestown Sun story, "Oil study released."

Great Falls Tribune story, "Bakken Formation oil field has up to 4.3 billion barrels."

New York Times story, "Billions of Barrels of Oil May Lie Under Northern Plains."

Bismarck Tribune story, "Bakken reserve largest in lower 48."

The USGS survey did not include the portions of the Bakken in Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

Posted by Carter Wood at 8:48 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

April 9, 2008

Global Warming: The Power Hungry's Perfect Tool

Old political strategy: Manufacture a crisis, demand more authority to address that crisis, use that authority to achieve other ideological goals, and expand your own personal power.

While you're at it, demonize opponents and otherwise stifle dissent.

Latest, most obvious example, California Aspiring Governor Jerry Brown's campaign for ueber-urban housing densities, part of his crusade for restructuring the economy and society to fit his vision of the world. From a Dan Walters' column:

The debate is not new but has gained volume because the advocates of vertical development - what Attorney General Jerry Brown describes as "elegant density" - have a new political lever in global warming.

Brown is waging a crusade for his development vision, something of a throwback to the "small is beautiful" credo he sometimes espoused as governor three decades ago.

(His personal commitment, however, is somewhat suspect since he and his wife, citing crime fears, moved from an urban loft in Oakland to a comfortable home in the Oakland hills after he took office last year.)

Brown has been suing, or threatening to sue, just about anyone who doesn't immediately adhere to his vertical vision, from the Environmental Protection Agency to local governments.

"I don't do much these days except sue people," Brown told the state Democratic convention in a virtual declaration of candidacy for governor two years hence. "But maybe one of these days I'll get around to doing more than that, and maybe you'll help me."

Cripes, that's ominous, on so many levels...a public official boasting of his hyperlitigiousness (remember Eliot Spitzer?) and calling for a mass movement to reshape society.

The strategy papers are all here.

Posted by Carter Wood at 10:19 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

April 8, 2008

Maryland Legislature, Regulate Away...

Left unaccomplished by the Maryland Legislature, which wrapped up its session yesterday late, a sweeping global warming bill. Instead of sweeping, they'll just pick and pick and pick and pick ...

ANNAPOLIS, Md. (AP) -- The day after the end of a lawmaking term, many talk about what didn't pass.

That's the case again this year with Maryland lawmakers failing to agree to a sweeping global warming bill to slash carbon dioxide emissions. That bill failed amid concerns it could cause factories to close and jobs to be lost.

So instead Maryland lawmakers passed regulations and fees, which will simply be borne by business and never passed on to the consumer. From the Baltimore Sun's issue-by-issue summary:

ENERGY
Lawmakers approved a package of administration bills to reduce the state's energy consumption 15 percent by 2015 and to double the amount of renewable energy that power companies must provide for sale to customers, to 20 percent by 2022. The legislation also sets out how to spend proceeds from new fees on industry intended to promote reducing greenhouse gases, directing the money to energy efficiency, conservation and small utility-bill rebates.

Twenty percent by 2022. Easy, so easy to accomplish. We can't wait to see all those beautiful wind turbines anchored up and down Chesapeake Bay. Regattas will be so much more interesting.

Posted by Carter Wood at 9:00 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

April 4, 2008

Brrrr....

From the BBC:

Global temperatures will drop slightly this year as a result of the cooling effect of the La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said.

The World Meteorological Organization's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, told the BBC it was likely that La Nina would continue into the summer.

This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory.

We've added today's weather forecast for Grand Forks, North Dakota, since it's the center of the political universe today. Both Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton are speaking at the state Democratic convention. Thirty-four degrees at the moment.

Posted by Carter Wood at 9:36 AM | 2 comments; click here to read them or submit your own! | Send to a Friend

April 3, 2008

Meanwhile, Back in the Jungle

Ted Turner envisions a Hobbesian future, or perhaps a Swiftian, or maybe a Hestonian? All because of global warming:

If steps aren't taken to stem global warming, "We'll be eight degrees hotter in 30 or 40 years and basically none of the crops will grow," Turner said during a wide-ranging, hour-long interview with PBS's Charlie Rose that aired Tuesday.

"Most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals," said Turner, 69. "Civilization will have broken down. The few people left will be living in a failed state — like Somalia or Sudan — and living conditions will be intolerable."

One way to combat global warming, Turner said, is to stabilize the population.

"We're too many people; that's why we have global warming," he said. "Too many people are using too much stuff."

And freedom. They're using too much freedom.

(Hat tip: Mark Hemingway. Better a Hemingwayian future, all things considered.)

Posted by Carter Wood at 4:17 PM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

AG Brown: For a Clean Environment, Drive Old Cars

Aspiring Governor Jerry Brown made a comment at the California Democratic convention last week that merits repeating. From Peter Hecht's Sac-Bee report, "Day of Political Preening":

He mentioned his state car – a blue Plymouth he drove for "eight years and 240,000" miles.

As a state vehicle, no doubt it was kept up well, but still ...A major contributor to air pollution has long been the continued presence of inefficiently running old cars using outdated technology, something as true in the 1970s as is true today.

In fact, California runs a "vehicle retirement program" that pays people money to get old vehicles off the streets.

So, Brown was probably polluting more back then just for image's sake. Well-earned Moonbeam, indeed.

UPDATE (8:09 a.m.) Oh, yes. Brown sues EPA. Again. Trying to achieve policy ends he could not achieve through the political or legislative process.

Posted by Carter Wood at 7:32 AM | 1 comment; click here to read it or submit your own! | Send to a Friend

March 31, 2008

Good Luck With That Hearing

The House Energy Independence and Global Warming Committee has no real legislative authority, but it's a bully pulpit for its chairman, Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA). On Tuesday, Markey will have seated in the pews five top oil industry executives, testifying at a hearing, "Drilling for Answers: Oil Company Profits, Runaway Prices and the Pursuit of Alternatives.” (Markey's news release.)

No one will be surprised at the tenor of the questioning.

From DowJones:

Federal lawmakers are sustaining their ongoing attack on Big Oil. Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., chairman of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, is on Tuesday expected to lambast oil executives for high oil prices at a panel hearing.

"This gas price record is a perfect example of why we need these oil companies to go on the record with the American people to discuss our dangerous dependence on oil," Markey ahead of his hearing. "These companies are defending billions in federal subsidies needed for renewable fuels and clean energy while reaping over a hundred billion dollars in profits in just the last year alone."

We have every confidence in the executives' ability to defend the oil industry if given a fair opportunity to respond to questions. One question we'd like fully addressed: How will increasing taxes on energy production by $18 billion encourage further domestic exploration and development?

Oh, and here's another: How will increasing energy taxes improve prices at the pump?

But perhaps those are best directed at Chairman Markey.

The five executives scheduled to testify:

Mr. J. Stephen Simon, Senior Vice President, Exxon Mobil Corp.
Mr. John Hofmeister, President, Shell Oil Company
Mr. Robert A. Malone, Chairman and President, BP America, Inc.
Mr. Peter Robertson, Vice Chairman, Chevron
Mr. John Lowe, Executive Vice President, ConocoPhillips

Posted by Carter Wood at 10:22 PM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

AG Jerry Brown, Suing His Way to the Governorship

This goes a long way in explaining why California Attorney General Jerry Brown has turned himself into the litigation-happy Environmental Minister at Large for the state.

SAN JOSE - State Attorney General Jerry Brown waxed nostalgic about his former days as governor on Saturday and strongly suggested that he might run again - just as soon as he is done suing President Bush over global warming.

In a speech to more than 1,000 activists at a state Democratic Party convention, Brown, 69, hyped his current legal battle to uphold California's global warming fight and enforce tough auto emissions standards. "I've had to sue Bush about five times," he said, because the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency "is blocking the will of the people of California."

He stirred speculation of another gubernatorial run when he closed his speech by saying: "I don't do too much these days except sue people. But someday maybe I'll get around to doing more than that and hopefully you'll help."

The old joke around political circles is that AG stands for "Aspiring Governor." We can add "Activist Guru" in Brown's case, if only for the historic resonance.

P.S. Take a look the Global Warming section of the AG office's state webpage. Brown's insertion into a policy area that rightfully belongs to the U.S. Congress is breathtaking.

Posted by Carter Wood at 9:36 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

March 28, 2008

Al Gore: Arguments Fail, Will Insults Succeed?

From CBS, "60 Minutes":

Confronted by Stahl with the fact some prominent people, including the nation’s vice president, are not convinced that global warming is man-made, Gore responds: "You're talking about Dick Cheney. I think that those people are in such a tiny, tiny minority now with their point of view, they’re almost like the ones who still believe that the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona and those who believe the world is flat,” says Gore. "That demeans them a little bit, but it's not that far off," he tells Stahl.

That's not quite as bad as comparing people who disagree with the climate models to Holocaust deniers, but Gore's comments are still a bullying attempt to shout down people who disagree with him. Probably because he can't carry the day on the basis of arguments alone...

From the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works: "U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007."

Posted by Carter Wood at 9:09 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

Lieberman-Warner: Intended Consequences

We're always on guard against new laws and regulations creating unintended consequences that take a whack at manufacturers and the economy, but when Phil Kerpen of Americans for Prosperity considers the Lieberman-Warner cap-and-trade scheme, he sees a lot of intended consequences. Kerpen cites the NAM-ACCF commissioned study on S. 2191, America's Climate Security Act, which projects inflation-adjusted costs including 3 to 4 million fewer jobs, $4,022 to $6,752 in lost household income, an annual hit to GDP of between $631 billion and $669 billion, and higher energy prices — 60 percent to 144 percent higher for gasoline and 77 percent to 129 percent higher for electricity. From "Bad Times for Green Schemes":

But these costs are not unfortunate side effects of the bill; they are intended effects. The bill’s key regulatory scheme is called “cap and trade,” which is a complicated, indirect way of levying an energy tax. Instead of charging a set amount for carbon-dioxide emissions, the government would sell a fixed number of permits, with prices set at auction and then determined by trading on Wall Street. This has all the costs of a tax, with price uncertainty and administrative costs thrown in.

Al Gore acknowledged that the House-sponsored energy tax of 1993, which he championed as vice president, contributed to Democratic congressional defeats. Yet while the cap-and-trade scheme helps hide the tax from voters, its purpose remains the same: Make energy much more expensive so that people use less of it.

Meanwhile, cap-and-trade has failed in Europe to achieve its goals, and even if successful, does anyone seriously believe such a program would do anything to curb supposed global warming?

Better to encourage the prosperity that allows the developed world to afford to address the environment, Kerpen argues.

Posted by Carter Wood at 8:21 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

March 25, 2008

Creating New Global Warming Policy Via Regulation

The business groups' brief in support of the Bonanza coal-fired power plant in Utah has elicited some news coverage, which we do welcome. The Sierra Club is attempting to twist and turn Clean Air Act regulations into an all-purpose tool to control carbon dioxide emissions, which, if affirmed, would vastly expand the federal government's authority over construction permits for new structures. The more attention the environmentalists' case receives, the more its excesses will be revealed. (Earlier post here.)

The Wall Street Journal's Environmental Capital blog covers the issue here. AP has a broadcast story available here.

Last fall, House Oversight Chairman Henry Waxman was indignant and berated EPA officials (sorry for the boilerplate) for granting the permits to allow the coal-powered plant, claiming the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA compelled the agency to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. No matter that the court's ruling dealt specifically with vehicle emissions, not stationary facilities, which fall under an entirely different section of the law. Or that the court said the EPA had the authority to regulate C02 from mobile sources, not that it MUST regulate.

It strikes us as strange that a representative of the policymaking branch of government would be so eager to surrender so much authority over U.S. economic activities to federal regulators. If the Sierra Club wins its argument, we'll see the EPA in charge of construction permits for things like big-box stores or new hospitals, federalizing local decision making. The result will be expensive, inflexible, and expensive.

UPDATE (11 a.m.): The AP print story, i.e., more complete.

Posted by Carter Wood at 8:37 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

March Madness: Must Everything be Politicized?

We went to a NCAA basketball tournament game and all we got was more finger wagging. Greenbrackets.com indeed.

What? Couldn't fit the Middle East peace process in there, too?

Posted by Carter Wood at 7:34 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

March 24, 2008

Sneaking In Radical Policy Via Regulation

The National Association of Manufacturers has joined the American Petroleum Institute, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and others in opposing an effort by the Sierra Club to dramatically expand the regulatory power of the Environmental Protection Agency over facilities that emit carbon dioxide. As our news release explains, we filed a brief with the EPA's Environmental Appeals Board supporting the issues of a construction permit to the Bonanza coal-fired power plant in Utah. The case is In re: Deseret Power Cooperative (PSD Appeal No. 07-03).

Environmentalists want to use the permitting process as a way to prevent new power plant construction, even when the Clean Air Act never envisioned its application against carbon dioxide emissions. And power plants are stationary sources, not mobile ones like automobiles that were at issue in Massachusetts v. EPA. As the NAM's Quentin Riegel argues:

Big-box stores, schools, fast-food restaurants – the number and type of facilities requiring EPA permits would explode if the Sierra Club gets its way. Even slight changes to these facilities or plans for new structures would require Clean Air Act pre-construction permits under the ‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration’ program.

Also on our brief (which is available here) are the American Chemistry Council, the American Royalty Council, the National Oilseed Processors Assocaition, and the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association.

Separately, free market groups last week also entered into the fray. The Competitive Enterprise Institute sent out a news release linking to the amicus brief from the critics of regulatory overreach. CEI Senior Fellow Marlo Lewis cut to the chase, calling the Sierra Club's petition preposterous.

The issue in Mass. v. EPA was whether EPA had to regulate CO2 emissions from new motor vehicles, under Section 202, a provision dealing solely with mobile source emissions. The Court specifically said it was not ordering EPA to establish new tailpipe standards, nor even that EPA had to issue or deny an endangerment finding regarding CO2, only that EPA's action or inaction must be grounded in the statute. In no way, shape, or form, did the Court tell EPA it had to regulate CO2 emissions from stationary sources, such as the Bonanza power plant.

Posted by Carter Wood at 1:49 PM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

March 20, 2008

…But Not In My Gas Tank

The National Center for Public Policy Research recently released the results of a poll that they sponsored which shows that 48 percent of respondents would not be willing to pay any additional gasoline costs to reduce emissions from passenger vehicles. Only 28 percent said that they would be willing to pay up to 50 cents more per gallon.

The questions in the NCPPR survey were in response to climate change proposals from Chairman Dingell but the Lieberman/Warner cap-and-trade bill currently in the Senate would increase the price of gasoline between 60% and 144% by 2030, according to a recent study the NAM released. It’s true that many public opinion surveys show that a majority of Americans approve of taking action to address climate change issues, but it's always a question of theory versus practice, push coming to shove. Judging by this survey, support for the legislation will disappear once the public realizes it would hit them at the gas pump and in the pocketbook.

Posted by Keith Smith at 3:25 PM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

This is an Argument?

We see this story on Margot Thorning's remarks in Montana. Thorning is senior vice president and chief economist of the American Council for Capital Formation, with which the NAM recently released an independent economic analysis of S. 2191, the Lieberman-Warner cap-and-trade bill. Among other findings, the report projected the legislation would cause GDP losses nationwide of as much of $210 billion and as many as 1.8 million lost jobs by 2020.

So how does the Montana governor's office respond to questions about Thorning's remarks and the economic analysis?

"They've been denying climate change is happening for so long, and now they're trying anything they can to scare people," said Eric Stern, senior counselor to Schweitzer. "This is a petroleum industry front group that is literally like a cigarette company promoting a study that says smoking is good for you."

Senior counselor? Reads more like something a snot-nosed kid would say, to come back with an insult instead of acknowledging legitimate concerns.

What's so strange and irresponsible about the remark is that Montana is an energy producing state, and Gov. Brian Schweitzer fancies himself an advocate of coal. Many, many NAM member companies are involved in the creation of jobs and wealth in Montana -- with a significant presence in the energy sector -- and the governor's office just blows them off. It does a disservice to the state's citizens and a rational discussion of energy and environmental policy.

Posted by Carter Wood at 3:14 PM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

Coal Exports: Global Demand for Energy Rises

The New York Times leads its business section Wednesday with a story about the rising global demand for coal.

And today's The Washington Post puts the same basic story on page one, "Coal Can't Fill World's Burning Appetite...With Supplies Short, Price Rise Surpasses Oil and U.S. Exporters Profit":

Big swings in the prices of coal and other commodities are common. But while the price of coal has slipped slightly in recent weeks, many analysts and companies are wondering whether high prices are here to stay. As increasing numbers of the world's poor join the middle classes, hooking up to electricity grids and buying up more manufactured goods, demand for coal grows. World consumption of coal has grown 30 percent in the past six years, twice as much as any other energy source. About two-thirds of the fuel supplies electricity plants, and just under a third heads to industrial users, mostly steel and concrete makers.

Meeting rising demand will prove difficult. To maintain its role as the world's producer of last resort, the United States will need to make major investments in mines, railways and ports.

"We think the current world markets have legs," said Thomas F. Hoffman, senior vice president of external affairs at Consol Energy, one of the biggest U.S. coal producers.

It's a heck of a story. Consider the trade angle: "The value of coal exports, which account for 2.5 percent of all U.S. exports, grew by 19 percent last year, to $4.1 billion, the National Mining Association said. An even bigger increase is expected this year."

New York Times. Washington Post. The TV networks should have the story on the evening news next week.

Posted by Carter Wood at 9:53 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

March 19, 2008

Global Warming Reality: India's Model T

Faced with the green-topian schemes to remake the U.S. economy, Henry Payne of The Detroit News has an inconvenient habit of looking at reality: While many push to cripple the U.S. economy by limiting emissions of carbon dioxide, the rest of the world is chosing prosperity instead.

Case in point, the new Tata Nano, a car for India's masses:

“The $2,500 Tata Nano is the kind of car upon which empires are built,” writes Detroit Free Press auto writer Mark Phelan this week. “The 122-inch-long Nano could be the first car a few hundred million people in the developing world dream about, and how many of them attain it. The Model T was a car like this. So was the Volkswagen Beetle. Their appeal and affordability put people around the world behind the wheel for the first time.”

In other words, India is on the cusp of an affordable auto revolution the U.S. and Europe experienced over a half century ago. And this in a country with ten times the population of the U.S. when Ford’s revolutionary car was introduced (15 million Model Ts were sold over its 20-year lifetime). Even before the Nano, vehicles in New Delhi — population 16.5 million — have increased five-fold in the last 20 years.

Followed by a boom in infrastructure building.

Payne concludes: "[The] Nano is a lesson that growing economies demand cheap energy, and — Goracle pipe dreams notwithstanding — the 21st century is on the cusp of an explosion in energy use."

Posted by Carter Wood at 9:36 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

March 18, 2008

Quick! Pass Legislation, or We'll Melt Away!

From The Washington Post, an AP story:

The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.

Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.

Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

That's Washington Post, November 2, 1922.

Posted by Carter Wood at 10:58 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

March 17, 2008

Communities Pondering New EPA Ozone Rule

The Environmental Protection Agency’s stricter ozone standard has communities around the nation wondering whether they have what it takes to meet the proposed new standard.

Critics of EPA’s decision to lower allowable ozone levels to 75 parts per billion from the current 80 parts per billion say the move is unnecessary. America’s skies are clearer and the current standard needs more time to work.

The new rule would impose higher costs on communities with little to no health benefits for Americans, critics contend. In fact, some areas that have seen air improve say it will be difficult to meet the new standard.

“It’s sort of like moving the goal post back a little bit,” said Dan Salkovitz, a meteorologist at the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. “It doesn’t mean the air quality has gotten worse, it means the air quality standard is stricter.”

Salkovitz was quoted in this story on Richmond's NBC Channel 12 Web site.

A story in the Idaho Business News says it will take an “extraordinary effort” to meet the new standard in the state’s Treasure Valley region.

In other parts of the United States, communities where air is clean enough to meet current rules wouldn't pass muster under EPA's proposed standard. That’s the case in Arizona’s Pima and Pinal counties, according to an Arizona Daily Star story. Officials in Pima are already trying to figure out how they would regain compliance -- and what would happen if they do not.

“Pima County officials have said a tougher inspection program for vehicle emissions, cleaner-burning gasoline and programs to promote less driving or more use of alternative fuel may eventually be necessary to bring local air into compliance. Otherwise, the county theoretically could lose federal highway money — years down the line — although that penalty is rarely enforced.”

Posted by Greg Wright at 3:44 PM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

Washington Post: A Shaggy, Snowy Dog Story

From the Washington Post's letters section, March 14th, a letter from the perspicacious Carl Wales of Bowie, Md.

Snow in Anchorage

Your March 2 Outlook article about the Iditarod dog-sled race ["Hot Dog! The Iditarod's Not as Cool as It Used to Be"] was an example of why understanding the debate about climate change is so hard.

Organizers did not have to truck snow into Anchorage for the start of the race because of lack of snow. They import it most every year because they want more snow on the streets for the sled runners than they normally leave after plowing the streets the same way any city does after it snows.

If you think it was warmer, talk to participants in this year's Yukon Quest dog-sled race, which started in Fairbanks when it was well below zero.

Maybe they trucked it in from Vermont, which had the snowiest February on record.

Posted by Carter Wood at 12:28 PM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

March 13, 2008

The Steep Costs of Lieberman-Warner

The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the American Council for Capital Formation released a new report today analyzing the costs of implementing S. 2191, the Lieberman-Warner global warming bill, the leading legislative proposal to limit carbon dioxide emissions through a cap-and-trade system. Key findings, among many, from the study conducted by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC).

Impact on Jobs
Under L/W, the United States would lose between 1.2 and 1.8 million jobs in 2020 and between 3 and 4 million jobs in 2030. The primary cause of job losses would be lower industrial output due to higher energy prices, the high cost of complying with required emissions cuts, and
greater competition from overseas manufacturers with lower energy costs.

Impact on Disposable Household Income
Higher energy prices would have ripple impacts on prices throughout the economy and would impose a financial cost of $739 to $2,927 per year by 2020 on national households, rising to $4,022 to $6,752 by 2030.

L/W’s Impact on Energy Prices
Most energy prices would rise under L/W, particularly, coal, oil, and natural gas. The price of gasoline would increase between 60% and 144% by 2030, while electricity prices would increase by 77% to 129%. Ta