There are many reasons to dislike wind power. For some people, giant wind turbines mar scenic vistas. Others don’t like it because it’s an unreliable, expensive source of electricity. I hate it reflexively, because the government forces us to use it, but that’s only an ancillary explanation of my anti-wind beliefs. To me, wind power is most objectionable because it kills things that I enjoy, like human beings.
Yesterday, the Los Angeles Times reported that there were 281 occupational health “incidents” in the wind power industry last year. Since the late 1970s, wind power has killed 78 people. It is ironic, in the Alanis Morissettian sense of the word, that global warming has yet to kill anyone, but wind power—a global warming “solution”—has taken out nearly 4 score humans.
[click to continue…]
Now that Republicans feel that they have won a minor victory over Obama on the debt deal, they might be more likely to make concessions on non-debt/spending related issues like the confirmation of Commerce Secretary nominee John Bryson. It is more important than ever that fans of the free-market pressure the Senate to oppose the nomination of this rent-seeking, radical environmentalist. In a Kansas City Star op-ed published this morning, I show why his corporatist past is reason enough to block Bryson’s nomination.
[click to continue…]
Environmentalist special interests run the sleaziest attack ads in the business, as has been noted before on this blog, and also by my colleague Marlo Lewis. It doesn’t matter if you are a Republican (like Sen. Scott Brown) or a Democrat (like Sen. Mary Landrieu)—if you don’t toe the green line, then environmentalist advocacy groups will go for your jugular. Almost always, these enviro organizations try to pin an allegation of child abuse on those with whom they disagree. Classy!
Case in point: The American Lung Association’s tasteless new television ad campaign, which I’ve posted at the end of this blog. Here’s how the ALA described the spot in a press release:
[click to continue…]
Last week, President Barack Obama announced that his administration would again increase fuel efficiency standards for new cars and trucks. According to one knowledgeable source, these auto regulations are pie-in-the-sky. Nonetheless, environmentalists are dissatisfied.
Usually, when environmentalists oppose environmental policy, it’s because the measure in question isn’t green enough. In California, for example, environmentalists oppose to solar power in the Mojave Desert, based on the fact that the installation of solar panels might hurt a tortoise. However, in the case of the President’s new fuel efficiency standards, environmentalists oppose the policy because it isn’t free-market enough. Seriously. Consider this amazing excerpt, from the Associated Press’s weekend write up of the new fuel efficiency regulations,
[click to continue…]
The Bright Side of the Debt Ceiling Deal
Elana Schor in Greenwire (reprinted by the New York Times here) on Thursday reported that the debt ceiling deal still being worked out between House Republicans and Senate Democrats will almost certainly cut funding drastically for years to come for the Environmental Protection Agency and the Departments of the Interior and Energy. Schor quotes a number of Democrats who oppose cutting spending on environmental programs, but doesn’t quote anyone on the obvious point: the federal government is broke and isn’t going to be able to afford a lot of things for many years.
While we will have to wait to see how severe the cuts will be, the Fiscal Year 2012 Interior and EPA Appropriations bill is still being debated on the House floor. According to Schor, environmental pressure groups have had little time to focus on the debt ceiling debate because they have been working overtime to try to undo some of the 38 or so riders in the appropriations bill that put limits on EPA and Interior. At the same time, Republicans are trying to add more riders to stop implementation of new regulations proposed by the Obama Administration.
[click to continue…]
For most of the last decade, alarmists have rung the global warming bell. Back in 2006, when Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth, was released, it seemed folks were beginning to wake up to the alarm. Public concern regarding global warming peaked following the release of Gore’s movie and is now back down to pre-propaganda levels. Addressing the declining public alarm about global warming, Edward Maibach, director of the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University, said, “The erosion in both public concern and public trust about global warming should be a clarion call for people and organizations trying to educate the public about this important issue.”
Ed, Al, et al, should be alarmed, as three different news items in one week add to the public’s growing skepticism about global warming.
[click to continue…]
Last week I wrote about the brave automakers who were taking out radio ads opposing the Obama Administration’s proposal to raise Corporate Average Fuel Economy (or CAFE) standards for new cars and light trucks to 56.2 miles per gallon by 2025. This week I must report that thirteen automakers signed on to a 54.5 miles per gallon CAFE standard by 2025. President Obama announced the deal on Friday.
My CEI colleague Marlo Lewis discusses this insanity here. Rep. Ralph Hall (R-Tex.), Chairman of the House Science Committee, sent out a press release last night making the point that CEI’s Sam Kazman has made for decades: CAFE kills. Kazman makes the point again here.
[click to continue…]
Obama’s CAFE Fairy Tale
Henry Payne, The Michigan View, 29 July 2011
EPA’s Air Quality Overkill
Steve Milloy, Washington Times, 29 July 2011
Heartland Responds to Nature
Joseph Bast, Heartland Institute, 28 July 2011
Polar Bear Scientist Under Investigation
Becky Bohrer, AP, 28 July 2011
New Paper “On the Misdiagnosis Of Surface Temperature Feedbacks From Variations In Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance”
Roger Pielke Sr., Climate Science, 26 July 2011
Earlier this week, Politico published an op-ed by former Sen. Majority Leader George Mitchell (1989-1995) and former EPA Administrator William Reilly (1989-1993) that is as intellectually mushy as it is politically devious.
In “Calif. Must Again Lead Way on Emission Standards,” Mitchell and Reilly pretend that the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB’s) proposal to establish a 62 mpg fuel economy standard is the moderate middle between automakers who “protest that the proposal is too demanding” and environmentalists who “want something more stringent.” Horsefeathers!
In September 2010, CARB, EPA, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued an Interim Joint Technical Assessment Report where they considered raising the passenger car fuel economy standard from 35.5 mpg in 2016 to 47 mpg, 51 mpg, 56 mpg, or 62 mpg in 2025.
Let’s not forget that the 2016 standard imposed by EPA, CARB, and NHTSA accelerated by four years the standard Congress set in the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act, which was itself 27% more stringent than the previous standard (27.5 mpg). In May 2011, the Auto Alliance, citing a U.S. Energy Information Administration assessment (p. 26), cautioned EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood that a 62 mpg standard would depress auto sales in 2025 by 14%. Team Obama subsequently settled on a 56 mpg standard. That’s a tad less extreme than the 62 mpg standard championed by CARB, but it’s still over the top.
A remarkable study by the Center for Automotive Research (CAR) — The U.S. Automotive Market and Industry in 2025 (June 2011) — reveals how cockamamie these proposals are. [click to continue…]
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
CEI.org