2011

This Week in the Congress

by Myron Ebell on April 2, 2011

in Blog, Features, Politics

Post image for This Week in the Congress

House Ready To Pass Upton Bill Next Week

The House has scheduled H. R. 910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act, for floor debate and passage on Wednesday, 6th April.  This could still slip given the wrangling that is going on between the House and the Senate over the Continuing  Resolution to fund the federal government for the rest of FY 2011 after the current CR runs out on 8th April.

Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton’s (R-Mich.) bill will pass easily with over 250 votes.  That most likely includes all 241 Republicans and 12 to 20 Democrats.

The Rules Committee has not yet met to decide which amendments will be in order.  Conservative Republicans in the Republican Study Committee are considering offering several amendments to strengthen the bill.

H. R. 910 as marked up by the Energy and Commerce Committee prohibits the EPA from using the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, but does not prohibit the Administration from using other existing statutes to regulate emissions.  Nor does it ban common law nuisance lawsuits against emitters of greenhouse gases, such as power plants, manufacturers, railroads, airlines, and cement producers.

Thus one obvious amendment would be to ban common law nuisance suits.  The Supreme Court is currently considering such a case.  It may find that such suits may proceed, but even if it does not it could do so for the wrong reason—namely, that the EPA is regulating emissions and has thereby pre-empted common law.

Democrats led by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Beverly Hills) will undoubtedly offer some of the same silly, irrelevant grandstanding amendments that they offered in committee.  Waxman was reported this week as expressing confidence that the bill has no chance in the Senate.

That was certainly true of his Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill in the last Congress.  One significant difference is that Waxman-Markey barely passed the House, 219-212.  The Upton-Whitfield bill will pass by a much wider margin.

Moreover, cap-and-trade was swimming against strong public opposition, while blocking EPA’s attempt to achieve cap-and-trade through the regulatory backdoor is swimming with public opinion.  That’s why, for example, Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) is still undecided about voting for the McConnell amendment (which is identical to the Senate version of H. R. 910) in the Senate.  She doesn’t want to vote for it, but she’d like to be re-elected in 2012.

Will the Senate Ever Vote on the McConnell Amendment?

The Senate spent another week without voting on Senator Mitch McConnell’s (R-Ky.) amendment to block EPA from using the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions or either of the two Democratic alternatives.  It is quite possible that there will be votes next week.  It is also quite possible that Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will work out a deal with McConnell to dispose of many of the amendments to the underlying bill without votes and proceed to passage of the Small Business Innovation Research Re-Authorization Act.  Or Reid may keep stalling.

McConnell originally introduced his amendment (#183 if you’re keeping track) to S. 493 on 15th March.  It is identical to Senator James M. Inhofe’s (R-Okla.) Energy Tax Prevention Act, S. 482, which is identical to the House bill of the same name, H. R. 910.

Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) introduced an amendment to try to provide cover for fellow Democrats and thereby siphon support from McConnell’s amendment.  Rockefeller would delay EPA regulations for two years.

[click to continue…]

Cooler Heads Digest 1 April 2011

by William Yeatman on April 1, 2011

in Blog, Cooler Heads Digest

Post image for Cooler Heads Digest 1 April 2011

In the News

Defund the EPA’s Enablers
Steven Milloy, Washington Times, 1 April 2011

Is the Public Clamoring for More EPA Regulation?
Marlo Lewis, GlobalWarming.org, 31 March 2011

EPA’s Benefit-Cost Estimates (30 free lunches for the price of 1?)
Garrett Vaughn, MasterResource.org, 31 March 2011

When Will Media Report That Corporate Cash is Behind Green Activism?
Paul Chesser, National Legal and Policy Center, 31 March 2011

Obama’s “Energy Security” Pivot
Chris Horner, AmSpecBlog, 30 March 2011

Halt Cap-and-Trade End Run
Dan Shaul & Phil Kerpen, Columbia Daily Tribune, 29 March 2011

A Green Energy Economy Revisited
Jerry Taylor & Peter Van Doren, Forbes, 29 March 2011

Gallup: Global Warming Least Concern of Least Concern for Voters
Ed Morrissey, Hot Air, 28 March 2011

“Drill, Brazil, Drill,” Obama Says
Conn Carroll, The Foundry, 28 March 2011

[click to continue…]

Memo to WaPo: Opposition to Cap-and-Trade Is Bipartisan

by William Yeatman on April 1, 2011

in Blog, Features

Post image for Memo to WaPo: Opposition to Cap-and-Trade Is Bipartisan

Yesterday, Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein posted about the President’s pitch for a so-called “Clean Energy Standard.” I don’t recommend his explanation; for a much more accurate description of the CES, check out this blog, by my colleague Marlo Lewis.

In this post, I intend only to rebut Klein’s mistaken claim that Congressional opposition to cap-and-trade is partisan. In fact, opposition to energy rationing schemes is one of the very few issues that enjoys support on both sides of the aisle in the Congress.

[click to continue…]

Post image for Good News on Sea-Level Rise

Good News on Sea-Level Rise

by Marlo Lewis on April 1, 2011

in Blog, Features

The scariest part of the global warming scare is the prediction of rapidly accelerating sea-level rise. In An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore warns that if half the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and half the Greenland Ice Sheet melted or broke off and slid into the sea, sea levels could rise as much as 20 feet. Gore implies this could happen within our lifetimes or those of our children, stating, in the book version of AIT (pp. 204-206), that some 100 million people living in Beijing, Shanghai, Calcutta, and Bangladesh would  “be displaced,” “forced to move,” or “have to be evacuated.”

I debunk Gore’s sci-fi doomsday scenario in earlier posts.  Suffice it to say here that the UN IPCC’s 2007 Fourth Assessment Report projects 18-59 centimeters (7-23 inches) of sea-level rise by 2100. To be sure, some scientists, such as Scripps Institute of Oceanography researcher Dr. Richard Somerville, who testified recently before the House Energy and Power Subcommittee, claim the IPCC estimate is too low and that sea levels will rise by 1-2 meters.

Drs. Shirwood, Craig, and Keith Idso, our colleagues at the Center for Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, have posted an editorial on sea-level rise that reviews a new study based on global tide gauge data.

The study, Houston and Dean (2011), finds that the rate of sea-level rise over the past 80 years has not accelerated and, in fact, has slightly decelerated. If I were a betting man, I’d put my money on sea level rise ending up near the low-end of the IPCC projection — about 7 inches, roughly the same amount as occurred in the 20th century. Clearly, now is not the time to sell the beach house!

The Idsos’s editorial follows in full: [click to continue…]

Can Obama End Our “Addiction” to Foreign Oil?

by Brian McGraw on April 1, 2011

in Blog, Features

Post image for Can Obama End Our “Addiction” to Foreign Oil?

In his speech earlier this week, President Obama took a brave and unprecedented stand against our nations reliance on foreign petroleum imports:

Now, here’s a source of concern, though. We’ve known about the dangers of our oil dependence for decades. Richard Nixon talked about freeing ourselves from dependence on foreign oil. And every President since that time has talked about freeing ourselves from dependence on foreign oil. Politicians of every stripe have promised energy independence, but that promise has so far gone unmet.

I talked about reducing America’s dependence on oil when I was running for President, and I’m proud of the historic progress that we’ve made over the last two years towards that goal, and we’ll talk about that a little bit. But I’ve got to be honest. We’ve run into the same political gridlock, the same inertia that has held us back for decades.

That has to change. That has to change. We cannot keep going from shock when gas prices go up to trance when they go back down — we go back to doing the same things we’ve been doing until the next time there’s a price spike, and then we’re shocked again. We can’t rush to propose action when gas prices are high and then hit the snooze button when they fall again. We can’t keep on doing that.

The United States of America cannot afford to bet our long-term prosperity, our long-term security on a resource that will eventually run out, and even before it runs out will get more and more expensive to extract from the ground. We can’t afford it when the costs to our economy, our country, and our planet are so high. Not when your generation needs us to get this right. It’s time to do what we can to secure our energy future.

Richard Nixon wasn’t the only one. As Jon Stewart pointed out last summer, the last eight administrations have warned against the alleged dangers of importing petroleum and provided a number of solutions to massively restructure the economy, none of which were successful. Stewart comments, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me eight times, am I a ****ing idiot?”

And yet we appear to be idiots, and more money will  be spent chasing pipe dreams with taxpayer money. The New York Times, today, congratulated Obama’s willingness to take on such a tough challenge and blamed the lack of progress on, wait for it, Republicans:

[click to continue…]

Is the Public Clamoring for More EPA Regulation?

by Marlo Lewis on March 31, 2011

in Features

Post image for Is the Public Clamoring for More EPA Regulation?

Is the public clamoring for more EPA regulation?

That’s what Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) claimed yesterday in a speech on the Senate floor (Congressional Record, pp. 1955-57) denouncing S. 493, the McConnell amendment/Inhofe-Upton Energy Tax Prevention Act, which would stop EPA from ‘legislating’ climate policy.

Boxer cited a poll finding that 69% of Americans believe “EPA should update Clean Air Act standards with stricter pollution limits.” Of course, most people want cleaner air in the abstract. That tells us nothing about how much those same people are willing to pay for cleaner air, or what other public priorities (e.g. affordable energy, job creation) they are willing to sacrifice or put at risk. In the abstract, most people also support a balanced budget.  But that does not necessarily mean they want Congress to cut their favorite programs or raise taxes. Without meaning to, people can easily “lie” to a pollster (see the accompanying cartoon).

In an earlier post today, I note that in the November 2010 elections, voters punished lawmakers pushing the EPA-Obama-Boxer stealth energy tax agenda formerly known as cap-and-trade. Elections are the most relevant “poll” for guiding legislative deliberations.

Maybe Boxer thinks she has more up-to-date information about public attitudes. But a very recent opinion survey conducted by the Tarrance Group directly contradicts the poll Boxer cites. Here are the results, as summarized in the Tarrance Group’s March 30, 2011 press release: [click to continue…]

S. 482: A Skeptical Review of Boxer’s Tirade

by Marlo Lewis on March 31, 2011

in Blog, Features

Post image for S. 482: A Skeptical Review of Boxer’s Tirade

Yesterday, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) mounted a tirade (Congressional Record, pp. 1955-57) against the McConnell amendment (a.k.a. S. 482, the Inhofe-Upton Energy Tax Prevention Act) to the small business reauthorization bill (S. 493). The amendment would stop EPA from ‘legislating’ climate policy under the guise of implementing the Clean Air Act (CAA), a statute enacted in 1970, years before global warming emerged as a public policy issue.

The Senate is expected to vote later today on S. 493, so it worthwhile examining Boxer’s speech, which opponents of the bill will undoubtedly recycle in today’s debate.

I discuss the rhetorical traps S. 482 supporters should avoid in an earlier post. Stick to your moral high ground, namely, the constitutional premise that Congress, not an administrative agency with no political accountability to the people, should make the big decisions regarding national policy. The fact that Congress remains deadlocked on climate and energy policy is a compelling reason for EPA not to ‘enact’ greenhouse gas (GHG) controls. It is not an excuse for EPA to substitute its will for that of the people’s representatives.

Okay, that said, let’s examine Boxer’s rant. It is lengthy, repetitive, and often ad homonym, so I’ll try to hit just the main points. [click to continue…]

The President’s Wacky Oil Plan

by William Yeatman on March 31, 2011

in Blog, Features

Post image for The President’s Wacky Oil Plan

I’m still trying to wrap my head around the President’s energy speech yesterday. I get the goal: Reduce oil imports 30 percent in a decade. But what I don’t get, at all, is the plan to achieve that goal. The President’s “Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future” doesn’t make any sense.

Consider, for example, his “Blueprint” for oil. It’s all over the place.

In the beginning of the speech, the President mocked the idea of “drill, baby, drill.” He said,

“We’ve been down this road before. Remember, it was just three years ago that gas prices topped $4 a gallon…It hit a lot of people pretty hard. But it was at the height of the political season, so you had a lot of slogans and gimmicks and outraged politicians waving three point plans for two dollar gas—you remember ‘drill, baby, drill?’—when none of it would really do anything to solve the problem. Imagine that in Washington.”

So, the President believes that “drill, baby, drill” would not “do anything to solve the problem.” Yet only moments later, he seemed to change his mind. He told the audience,

“Meeting this new goal of cutting our oil dependence depends largely on two things: finding and producing more oil at home, and reducing our dependence on oil with cleaner alternative fuels and greater efficiency.”

So, the President believes that “meeting this new goal…depends largely on…finding more oil at home.” But “finding more oil” necessarily requires more drilling. How is this different from “drill, baby, drill,” which the President only moments before had denigrated?

[click to continue…]

Baseball’s Opening Day: Global Warming Wanted

by Myron Ebell on March 31, 2011

in Blog, Features

Post image for Baseball’s Opening Day: Global Warming Wanted

It’s Opening Day, and here in Washington the Nationals are scheduled to play the Atlanta Braves at 1:05 PM.  The weather forecast is for rain and high temperatures in the upper-40s.  At least the wintry mix has ended.   I can’t wait for a little global warming.

I once had a chance to ask former Vice President Al Gore about the benefits of higher carbon dioxide levels and global warming.  He was dumbfounded.  Clearly, the idea of any upsides had never occurred to him.  A great deal of material on the benefits of higher carbon dioxide levels has now been collected in a book by Drs. Craig Idso and Sherwood Idso.  A summary can be found at this link.  The book, the Many Benefits of Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment, can be ordered here.

Although the Idsos catalogue many of the benefits of higher carbon dioxide levels, their invaluable web site, CO2 Science, also catalogues the overwhelming evidence and data that there has not been enough global warming in the past few decades to notice.  That’s why opening days are still so often cold and miserable.

How Many Agencies Does It Take to Regulate Fuel Economy?

by Marlo Lewis on March 30, 2011

in Blog, Features

Post image for How Many Agencies Does It Take to Regulate Fuel Economy?

How many agencies does it take to regulate fuel economy?

Only one — the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) — if we follow the law (1975 Energy Policy and Conservation Act, 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act); three — NHTSA + EPA + the California Air Resources Board — if law is trumped by the backroom, “put nothing in writing,” Presidential Records Act-defying deal negotiated by former Obama Environment Czar Carol Browner.

Tomorrow, the Senate is expected to vote on S. 493, the McConnell amendment, which is identical to S. 482, the Inhofe-Upton Energy Tax Prevention Act. S. 493 would overturn all of EPA’s greenhouse gas (GHG) regulations except for the GHG/fuel economy standards EPA and NHTSA jointly issued for new motor vehicles covering model years 2012-2016, and the GHG/fuel economy standards the agencies have proposed for medium- and heavy-duty trucks covering model years 2014-2018. The legislation would leave intact NHTSA’s separate statutory authority to regulate fuel economy standards for automobiles after model year 2016 and trucks after model year 2018.

Bear in mind that GHG emission standards and fuel economy standards are largely duplicative. As EPA acknowledges, 94-95% of all GHG emissions from motor vehicles are carbon dioxide (CO2) from the combustion of motor fuels. And as EPA and NHTSA acknowledge, “there is a single pool of technologies for addressing these twin problems [climate change, oil dependence], i.e., those that reduce fuel consumption and thereby reduce CO2 emissions as well” (Joint GHG/Fuel Economy Rule, p. 25327).

The National Auto Dealers Association (NADA), whose members know a thing or two about what it takes to meet the needs of the car-buying public, sent a letter to the Senate today urging a “Yes” vote on S. 493. NADA stresses three points. S. 493 would:

  • End, after 2016, the current triple regulation of fuel economy by three different agencies (NHTSA, EPA, and California) under three different rules.
  • Restore a true single national fuel economy standard under the CAFE program, with rules set by Congress, not unelected officials. Ensure jobs, consumer choice, and highway safety are considered according to federal law when setting a fuel economy standard.
  • Save taxpayers millions of dollars by ending EPA’s duplicative fuel economy regime after 2016.

Let’s examine the first two points in a bit more detail. The NADA letter says: [click to continue…]

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →