Senator John Thune (R-SD) concedes that there is little hope for sticking the ethanol ‘compromise’ into the ongoing debt ceiling negotiations:
“We had hoped to be able to hitch a ride on whatever the big debt package was going to be. We assumed there would be a tax title in that,” Thune said. “That unraveled.”
The plan would end the blenders tax credit early, months before the schedule expiration date of Dec. 31. Under congressional rules, Thune and Klobuchar would need to attach their plan to legislation that already deals with taxes.
Thune said members of Congress are generally hostile towards ethanol, making it difficult for the plan to pass as a standalone bill. [click to continue…]
Recently in Reuters, Peter Goldmark vilified U.S. airlines for hiring lobbyists to fight EU emissions regulations. He argued that airlines should willingly accept the new rules because they’re “modest” and compliance is “flexible.”
This is nonsense. Bowing to government threats and regulations is an open-door for more. To wit, the U.S. airline industry “compromised” with the European Union and agreed to monitor greenhouse gas emissions on international flights. Now the EU is forcing the industry to compromise further: Starting in January 2012, all airlines that operate flights into and out of European airports must participate in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, a cap-and-trade energy-rationing policy. This immodest regulation will jeopardize business by raising the cost of international travel. It’s also likely a violation of international law. The airlines can and should fight back.
[click to continue…]
Admittedly, we, as a country, need to get past this debt-ceiling crisis and, consequently, it has consumed the news cycle. But, the proposed solutions focus mainly on two elements of the problem, while the rating agencies seem to be looking at the bigger picture. Whether Republican or Democrat, the plans address only cutting spending or raising taxes, and the $14 trillion number is too large to meet in the middle—even if we did both. Long term, what Moody’s and Standard and Poor’s are looking for is a plan moving forward that will fix the future.
So, how’d we get here? The over-simplified answer is basically the same way any household account gets into trouble: too much spending and not enough income. Both sides of the debate seem willing to cut some spending. President Obama apparently thinks the only way to increase revenue is by raising taxes.
[click to continue…]
Big Green Blocks Oil Pipeline, Thousands of Jobs
Washington Examiner editorial, 28 July 2011
Federal “Clean Energy” Loan Guarantee: Crazy Dollars for Bubble Jobs
Vance Ginn, Master Resource, 28 July 2011
Markey’s Posturing on Revenue Sharing
Iain Murray, Planet Gore, 27 July 2011
Indefensible Enviro Agitprop
Paul Chesser, American Spectator, 27 July 2011
Amazing Job Security for EPA Bureaucrats
Dennis Cauchon, USA Today, 19 July 2011
Newt Gingrich, like other Republican ‘candidates’ — if you can really call him one — is walking back previous climate change positions:
“I was trying to make a point that we shouldn’t be afraid to debate the left, even on the environment,” Gingrich said on WGIR radio of the 30-second television commercial. “Obviously it was misconstrued, and it’s probably one of those things I wouldn’t do again.”
Odd, the clip doesn’t sound like much of a debate. Gingrich’s decision to sit with Nancy Pelosi and chuckle whimsically about how much they disagree on non-climate related issues has, understandably, drawn ire from the few remaining people who pretend to take Gingrich seriously. The extent to which he truly has no consistent political beliefs is astounding, having provided talking points for every side of every issue. He hadn’t changed his mind 6 months ago when asked:
Gingrich told us Friday: “I meant exactly what I said in that commercial.”
So he meant exactly what he said, except that it was obviously misconstrued, and he probably wouldn’t do it again. Oh okay, that makes sense.
Here is Newt being paid to promote ethanol interests, then denying that he is any sort of ‘lobbyist’ for the industry.
Yesterday morning I reported on an intensifying showdown between two branches of government over a controversial loan guarantee issued to Solyndra, Inc., a California-based rooftop solar components manufacturer. In a nutshell, the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations (of the Energy and Commerce Committee) is looking into whether Solyndra’s $535 million loan guarantee had anything to do with the fact that the solar company’s chief financial backer was a major fundraiser for President Barack Obama’s campaign. Further casting suspicion on the loan guarantee was its suspicious timing, almost 10 months before the next such issuance. Only months after the loan guarantee was granted, Solyndra suffered major financial difficulties, and the company had to shutter a plant. Since January, the Subcommittee has been investigating whether taxpayer dollars were put at undue risk so that the President could reward a political friend, but the Office of Management and Budget has stonewalled the inquiry. The OMB has refused to produce documents, and also to send a representative to testify before the Subcommittee. After months of obfuscation, the Subcommittee got fed up, and voted on July 14 to subpoena documents from the OMB. These documents were due yesterday morning at 9:00 A.M.
Last night, Energy and Environment News PM reported that OMB failed to produce any information, and instead asked for until Friday to produce almost 300 pages of documents. E&E PM reporter John McArdle quoted this email reaction from a Subcommittee staffer:
[click to continue…]
Wind Power: Politically Correct Environmental Damage
Tom Tanton, Master Resource, 26 July 2011
Green Cops Aren’t Better for the Planet
Dennis Byrne, Chicago Tribune, 26 July 2011
Exporting Gas Benefits America
Nicolas Loris, The Foundry, 25 July 2011
Global Warming Panel to Earth’s Rescue, on UN’s Dime?
Rachel Marsden, Human Events, 24 July 2011
Is EPA’s Purpose Protecting the Environment, or Shuttering Industry?
Bryan Shaw, Washington Examiner, 23 July 2011
Great news–the Federal Trade Commission is reexamining its textile care labeling regulation! This is the rule, first issued in 1971, that requires those little labels in clothing that tell you “dry clean only” or “wash in cold water” or whatever else is appropriate. Some people find certain of these labels irritating—literally irritating, that is, like when they’re made of stiff fabric that rubs against your neck. Personally, I find them pretty handy, though I’m not sure we need a federal rule to guarantee their presence.
The FTC says its reexamination is part of its systematic review of all its regs. It’s not clear whether the end result will be better or worse. Right now the rule actually prohibits any reference to “professional wetcleaning” in a label (that’s the allegedly eco-friendly water-based type of commercial cleaning, as opposed to traditional solvent-based drycleaning). Perhaps that will change. On the other hand, the FTC is also considering whether to mandate care instructions in foreign languages. That’s sure to make those itchy labels even itchier.
Here’s my suggestion: any label that states that an item can be home-laundered should also state the following, “If your washing machine is a newly-manufactured conventional top-loader, don’t even bother trying to wash this or any other article of clothing.” This would reflect the fact that, as Consumer Reports found several months ago, these washing machine models are now “often mediocre or worse.”
[click to continue…]
Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of New York City and billionaire founder of the Bloomberg financial news service, has announced that he is giving $50 million to the Sierra Club for their Beyond Coal campaign. The gift over four years from Bloomberg’s charitable foundation will allow the Sierra Club to double their Beyond Coal staff to 200 and expand their efforts from 15 to 45 States.
The Sierra Club takes credit for stopping 153 new coal-fired power plants. Now, they will be able to campaign to shut down existing plants. Apparently, Mayor Bloomberg is happy to make billions of dollars supplying financial news to business and industry, but doesn’t care about restoring economic growth or about out-of-work people struggling to pay their electric bills and keep the lights on.
The local utility company had just released their report outlining how they’d met the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), passed by the legislators back in 2007. I posted the following on my Facebook page: “New Mexico Utility Company report outlining future energy plans = more expensive electricity facing all states with RPS.” A long series of posts followed including this one from Steve: “The sky is WAY too clean! Let’s get some Los Angeles-style haze going on. And our water? Way too clean… let’s dump battery acid in it! There’s not enough lung cancer in NM to support our private cancer clinics—let’s get some air pollution in this mother! If you want to live where you can see the sun and breathe the air, sorry, it might have to cost a little more.”
Next, Todd posted: “Are you arguing that the current environment is so bad that we have the cancer, the haze, the battery acid? Are you saying that people who violate the law will not be prosecuted? It seems so. I would also suggest that you have a burden of proof here. You would need to prove that the system is broken before requiring new laws.” Steve didn’t post again.
[click to continue…]
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
CEI.org