Dumping on Al Gore’s hypocritical, hysterical climate change posturing is like bitching about metro service here in the nation’s capital: It’s trite, but nonetheless gratifying. Having acknowledged as much, I draw your attention to an excellent editorial in yesterday’s Investor’s Business Daily, about the former Vice President’s plan to go on a star-studded cruise to Antarctica. Here’s a snippet:
Al Gore, who invented global warming hysteria, has most recently been found planning a trip to Antarctica where he will surely find evidence that man is overheating the planet.
This clearly insecure man who so desperately needs an audience that approves of his world-saving efforts says he will be taking with him “a large number of civic and business leaders, activists and concerned citizens from many countries.”
He expects them “to see firsthand and in real time how the climate crisis is unfolding in Antarctica.”
For Gore’s reading material on this trip, we suggest he look at some data released by Great Britain’s Met Office. He would find himself meeting head-on a terribly inconvenient truth.
According to the data, there’s been no warming for more than a decade. The global temperature that Gore and the rest of the alarmist tribe are so concerned about was about one full degree cooler (as measured in Celsius) last year than it was when temperatures peaked in 1997.
Of course 2012 could be warmer than 2011 just as 2010 was warmer than 2008 and 2009.
Or it could be cooler. Who knows?
Read the whole thing here.
Both industry and environmentalists were paying close attention to yesterday’s House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment hearing on the “fractured science” behind the groundwater (not drinking water) contamination research in Pavillion, Wyoming conducted by US Environmental Protection Agency. On December 8, 2011, the EPA released a draft report recapitulating the findings of their investigation. “Investigation” is too strong a word, because the point of the hearing was to find out why EPA released the draft report before key results were reproduced, or before the study was even peer reviewed. EPA’s draft report has been exploited by environmentalist zealots, so it is strange that the Agency failed to vet the document before it was released. This is especially true in light of the many methodology problems alleged by state and industry officials.
Fracking, the gas extraction process in which several tons of pressurized water laced with sand and a small amount of chemicals are injected through the drill hole to break up apart shale rock so trapped gas can flow more freely, has been improved by the new technology of horizontal drilling. The ability to drill horizontally is valuable because it can reach and recover more gas that is inaccessible by vertical drilling alone. This is a new and valuable practice that involves environmental precaution, so it’s only natural for environmentalists to jump to conclusions. Unfortunately, so is EPA.
[click to continue…]
As noted here last week, the sparks flew at a Jan. 25 House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing titled “The Volt Fire: What Did NHTSA Know and When Did They Know It?” Three witnesses testified: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Administrator David Strickland, General Motors (GM) CEO Daniel Akerson, and John German of the International Council on Clean Transportation. My earlier post was based on newspaper accounts of the hearing. Over the weekend, I watched the archived video of the proceeding and read the testimonies and Committee Staff Report. Here are the key facts and conclusions as I see them:
- The Volt battery fire occurred on June 2, 2011 in the parking lot of a Wisconsin crash test facility. The car caught fire three weeks after the vehicle had been totaled, on May 12, in a side-pole collision. The fire caused an explosion that destroyed not only the Volt but three other vehicles. The blast hurled one of the Volt’s components (a strut) a distance of nearly 80 feet.
- The fire was caused by the leaking of coolant into the Volt’s powerful 300-volt battery, which had been punctured by the crash.
- NHTSA could have avoided the fire had it run down (“drained,” “depowered,” “discharged”) the battery after the crash. This raises obvious questions: Was NHTSA responsible for the fire? Was the agency’s six-month silence partly an attempt to hide regulatory incompetence?
- The Volt is a safe car; consumers should not fear to drive it. Gasoline-powered vehicles are more likely than battery-powered vehicles to burn after a crash. The post-crash explosion from a damaged gas tank can occur in seconds as opposed to weeks. Electric vehicle batteries are harder to puncture than gas tanks. NHTSA tried and failed to replicate the fire by crashing other Volt test vehicles. To induce another battery fire, NHTSA had to impale the battery with a steel rod and rotate it in coolant with special laboratory equipment.
- GM is retrofitting Volt batteries to make them stronger and more leak proof, and is updating safety protocols to ensure batteries are depowered after crashes.
- NHTSA kept silent about the fire for six months, acknowledging it only after Bloomberg News broke the story on November 11, 2011.
- GOP Committee members produced no smoking gun evidence of collusion to cover up the Volt battery fire, such as an email saying ‘We’ve got to keep this under wraps or it will depress Volt sales, jeopardize EPA’s fuel economy negotiations with automakers, and make President Obama look bad.’
- Nonetheless, the Obama administration’s heavy investment (financial and political) in GM in general and the Volt in particular creates an undeniable conflict of interest.
- NHTSA determined the cause of the fire in August 2011, yet waited until November 25 to advise emergency responders, salvage yard managers, and Volt owners how to avoid, and reduce the safety risks associated with, post-crash fires.
- Administrator Strickland’s protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, it is difficult to explain the agency’s secretiveness apart from political considerations that should not influence NHTSA’s regulatory deliberations.
[click to continue…]
Last week, 16 scientists published an oped in the Wall Street Journal about how global warming isn’t a big deal. Yesterday, 38 scientists published a letter in the same paper, about how global warming is a big deal. Tomato, tamato.
Personally speaking, global warming is the last of my concerns. This is the predominate view among Americans. So my eyes glazed over the science squabbles in the two letters. I did, however, find it interesting that the second letter, representing the “consensus” view, contradicted itself.
[click to continue…]
Today’s House Science, Space, and Technology Committee on “Fractured Science” was overshadowed by an obvious publicity stunt. This is a shame, because the media’s attention should have been focused on the substance of the hearing, which cast suspicion on the timing of EPA’s recent bombshell press release about aquifer contamination allegedly produced by hydraulic fracturing in Pavillion, Wyoming. I attended the hearing, and I will report on it tomorrow. Today’s post bemoans Fox’s agitprop tactics.
After settling into my seat, eager to hear testimony, I noticed a swarm of security guards surrounding a young man in baseball cap and thick-rimmed glasses attempting to set up film equipment. It was Josh Fox, director of the fear mongering documentary “Gasland,” who was escorted in hand-cuffs out of the hearing squealing, “I’m being denied my First Amendment rights!” Apparently, Fox is working on a sequel to “Gasland,” a debunked film predicated on the attempts to brand the entire natural gas industry with an infamous scene of a man lighting his tap water on fire.
Fox was precluded from filming the hearing because he did not have the necessary press credentials. Reportedly, an ABC news camera crew was also blocked from filming. In the wake of Fox’s removal, ranking member Rep. Brad Miller of North Carolina requested a vote for Fox to film. Ranking Member Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD) recessed the hearing for nearly an hour because there was not a quorum. As more Congressman filed in, the vote finally took place. On a 7-6 party-line vote, the majority denied the Ranking Member’s request.
[click to continue…]
January marked the first month that the ethanol industry had to stand on its own feet was only supported by a massive taxpayer mandate for their product, rather than tax preferences, tariff protections, and a mandate.
Do not fret, as sales for E10 (10% ethanol 90% gasoline, commonly purchased at the pump) will hold remarkably steady, because this is the primary venue the rent-seekers use to dilute our nations gasoline supply with ethanol. I only slightly kid, as it makes sense to blend small percentages of ethanol into our fuel supply, though not in amounts exceeding 10 percent.
However, in the United States there are also niche markets for E-85, which is made up of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline. E85 sales more accurately reflect what an actual competitor to gasoline would look like, as E10 blends only supplement regular fuel production. While there are a number of flex-fuel vehicles on the road (FFVs) capable of running on any blend of ethanol and gasoline, E85 sales have never taken off in the United States. This is because, after adjusting for the lower energy content in ethanol, it costs more money per mile traveled to fuel your vehicle with E85 than E10. It has always been this way and its unclear if it will ever change.
[click to continue…]
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
CEI.org