Brian McGraw

Do Voters Overwhelmingly Support Clean Energy Candidates?

by Brian McGraw on October 19, 2010

in Blog

The Huffington Post and NRDC’s Action Fund say yes, and are using this poll to edge congressional-hopefuls towards committed support for green energy.

The poll was run in sixteen different states by Public Policy Polling. The results for the different states are here. The results confirm the skepticism many have of public polling—the framing of the question has an enormous effect on the expressed opinions.

Here is an example question (from a section of Ohio):

Congress is considering an energy bill to move America towards a new energy future including investments in wind and solar power. Supporters say the energy bill will create millions of new jobs, reduce our use of foreign oil, hold corporate polluters accountable and cut the pollution that causes climate change. Opponents say the bill will cost companies money and is like an energy tax that would

actually reduce jobs. Do you agree more with supporters of the energy bill or opponents of the energy bill?

Agree more with supporters………………………. 43%

Agree more with opponents ………………………. 41%

Not sure …………………………………………………. 16%

Emphasis mine. The results aren’t important, there is probably even more support for this particular question in other states. The phrasing of the poll controls the outcome. Support for energy legislation is depicted as “moving America towards a new energy future” — which paints a vague picture of a new, brighter future. Do you like new cars or old cars? Do you want a new cell-phone or to keep your old crummy one?

Next, we hear that the legislation will create millions of jobs – 100% of voters love job creation, particularly during periods of high unemployment, and “holding corporate polluters accountable” invokes a standard outrage against the evil tyrannical corporations, who don’t seem to be getting any credit for powering our homes and businesses.

Now look at what they say the opponents of this legislation claim: “that it will cost companies money” and will reduce jobs. Is this what opponents claim? Many do claim a net loss of jobs because of increased energy prices. But do any reasonable opponents claim that the legislation will only cost companies money? No – they correctly explain that much of these costs will be passed onto consumers, a fact which was not-accidentally left out of the poll. It is phrased as a win-win for the average-Joe, who can stick it to the corporations and maybe get one of those awesome new jobs. When you promise an unrealistic win-win future, and throw in some good old corporate-bashing, you shouldn’t be surprised when people believe it.

Here is a poll conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs about a year ago, on support for cap-and-trade. It’s all about the phrasing.

“There’s a proposed system called ‘cap and trade’ that some say would lower the pollution levels that lead to global warming. With Cap and Trade, The government would issue permits limiting the amount of greenhouse gases companies can put out. Companies that did not use all their permits could sell them to other companies. The idea is that many companies would find ways to put out less greenhouse gases, because that would be cheaper than buying permits. Would you support or oppose this system?”

.

Support Oppose Unsure

52% 41% 7%

.

“What if a cap and trade program significantly lowered greenhouse gases but raised your monthly electrical bill by 10 dollars a month? In that case would you support or oppose it?” N=567

.

Support Oppose Unsure

50% 48% 2%

.

“What if a cap and trade program raised your monthly electrical bill by 10 dollars a month but also created a significant number of ‘GREEN’ jobs in the United States? In that case would you support or oppose it?” N=567

.

Support Oppose Unsure

69% 29% 2%

“What if a cap and trade program significantly lowered greenhouse gases but raised your monthly electrical bill by 25 dollars a month? In that case would you support or oppose it?” N=553

.

Support Oppose Unsure

43% 55% 2%

.

“What if a cap and trade program raised your monthly electrical bill by 25 dollars a month but also created a significant number of ‘GREEN’ jobs in the United States? In that case would you support or oppose it?” N=553

.

Support Oppose Unsure

60% 36% 4%

Links: October 19th

by Brian McGraw on October 19, 2010

in Blog

West Virginia Senate Debate Addresses Climate Change (C-SPAN Video)

Candidates Governor Joe Manchin (D), John Raese (R), Jesse Johnson (Mountain Party), Jeff Becker (Constitution Party). Though the candidates have differing opinions on climate change itself, they’re united in agreement that cap-and-trade legislation would be bad news for West Virginia. Governor Manchin wants to destroy the bill, literally.

The energy discussion takes place from 19:00-25:00.

In Kansas, Climate Skeptics Embrace Cleaner Energy

“Don’t mention global warming,” warned Nancy Jackson, chairwoman of the Climate and Energy Project, a small nonprofit group that aims to get people to rein in the fossil fuel emissions that contribute to climate change. “And don’t mention Al Gore. People out here just hate him.”

A small project in Kansas has led green-energy advocates to realize that some mid-western communities are willing to embrace energy saving programs despite their skepticism over climate change. Instead, advocates rely on promises of reduced dependence on foreign oil, energy conservation, and creating local green jobs.

Outsourcing Your Emissions

by Brian McGraw on October 18, 2010

in Blog, Politics

The Guardian reported this weekend on the confusing statistics being employed in Europe’s effort to reduce GHG emissions, “Europe on track for Kyoto targets while emissions from imported goods rise“.

The European Environment Agency reported that Europe is on track to meet agreed-upon emissions reductions of 20% by 2020, having already reduced their emissions by 17% from 1990 levels. A European Think-Tank, Policy Exchange, took a different perspective, noting that during this time emissions from imported goods and services have increased by 40%.

The stringent emissions reductions policy in Europe has caused domestic emissions to be replaced by emissions from foreign imports. If your goal is a global emissions reductions, then by this measure their policy has failed — while raising the price of energy and encouraging manufacturers to relocate abroad.

The European Department for Energy and Climate Change prefers only to look at domestic production, arguing that embedded emissions from imported Chinese produced goods are not the UK’s responsibility, and that “The UK calculates and reports its emissions according to the internationally agreed criteria set out by the UN.” Given China’s clear assertions that Chinese national interests will come first, it seems unlikely that they will be willing to take responsibility for the entirety of emissions from export production.

Walter Russell Mead comments on this topic.

Renowned Physicist resigns from American Physical Society

by Brian McGraw on October 15, 2010

in Blog, Science

Harold Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics at UC Santa Barbara, sent a resignation letter to the American Physical Society last week. He had been a member of the APS for 67 years. Lewis called Global Warming the “greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life.”

An excerpt:

For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

…

The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one.

Lewis accuses the APS of ignoring the very valid concerns of its members over their official statement on climate change (which ignored what Lewis believes to be numerous uncertainties) and being corrupted by financial interests in the global warming debate.

The APS responded, denying Dr. Lewis’ accusations, most vehemently that they had been captured by financial interests. They did, however, agree to create a topical group to further discuss their position on the issue. This was one of Dr. Lewis’ primary complaints – that he had been not been allowed to convene a group on this issue, so despite his resignation, he was successful in that regard.

Bob Barr, [un]Principled Supporter of Ethanol

by Brian McGraw on September 24, 2010

in Blog

Bob Barr, the 2008 Libertarian Party presidential nominee, had a piece in yesterday’s Huffington Post titled Extending Ethanol Tax Credit Makes Sense. It’s depressing to see such a high-profile libertarian completely sell out, and I hope he receives flack over this return to special interest politics, as just over a year ago he said “How about the still-active ethanol subsidy scam?“ Thankfully, the online comments from the left-leaning Huffington Post suggest few are buying into his spiel. If this was some ploy by the ethanol industry to gain support from free-marketers, let me suggest that will not succeed. The entire article is full of misinformation.

Barr attributes a “lack of public awareness,” and the tax credit’s apparent complexity to the trouble ethanol proponents are having in re-securing the tax credits.

I would think a lack of public awareness, if anything, would help the ethanol industry. If the public was even remotely aware of the extent to which government support for ethanol is bad policy, more people would be against it. Right now, all they’re seeing is the occasional advertisement featuring a bright yellow corn-stalk or blabber about how ethanol can’t spill in the gulf (unless we import it from Brazil, then of course the likelihood of a spill approaches 100%). I’d suggest that the ethanol industry get in touch with the sugar lobby for a few pointers on how to maintain horrendous policy.

Barr cites a 2010 CBO report, “Using Biofuel Tax Credits to Achieve Energy and Environmental Policy Goals“ and concludes that evaluating the benefits of ethanol is daunting and un-objective. Confident that no one will actually find the report and read even the summary, Barr is able to completely misconstrue the conclusions of the report (and he talks of ethanol opponents being disingenuous).

At the risk of repeating myself for the 10th time, let’s look at relevant quotes from the CBO report:

From the conclusions section of their summary:

The costs to taxpayers of using a biofuel to reduce gasoline consumption by one gallon are $1.78 for ethanol made from corn and $3.00 for cellulosic ethanol.

Taxpayers spend $1.78 to reduce consumption of one gallon of gasoline; approximately 66% of current gas prices. Sounds like a great deal to me.

Similarly, the costs to taxpayers of reducing greenhouse gas emissions through the biofuel tax credits vary by fuel: about $750 per metric ton of CO2e (that is, per metric ton of greenhouse gases measured in terms of an equivalent amount of carbon dioxide) for ethanol, about $275 per metric ton of CO2e for cellulosic ethanol, and about $300 per metric ton of CO2e for biodiesel. Those estimates do not reflect any emissions of carbon dioxide that occur when the production of biofuels causes forests or grasslands to be converted to farmland for growing the fuels’ feedstocks. If those emissions were taken into account, such changes in land use would raise the cost of reducing emissions and change the relative costs of reducing emissions through the use of different biofuels—in some cases, by a substantial amount.

Not cost effective at lowering emissions. The Waxman Markley cap-and-trade bill had permits set to be traded at $32. Equivalent carbon permits in the EU are selling for approximately $20. This means that other industries are capable of reducing their GHG emissions at a cost of 23-27 times less.

“In the future, the scheduled rise in mandated volumes would require the production of biofuels in amounts that are probably beyond what the market would produce even if the effects of the tax credits were included. To the extent that the mandates determine levels of production in the future, the biofuel tax credits would no longer be increasing production, but they would still be reducing the costs borne by producers and consumers of biofuels and shifting some of those costs to taxpayers.”

Given the Renewable Fuels Standard, the tax credit doesn’t do much other than secure (little) excess profit for the ethanol industry at taxpayer expense.

Continuing on, Barr discusses subsidies for the oil-companies and job losses. The oil company subsidies are mostly in the form of tax write-offs available to a wide sector of U.S. industry (good summary here) rather than just the oil companies. To the extent to which the oil companies do receive subsidies, they are larger on an absolute level but are dwarfed by all sectors of “renewable energy” (let us not forget that the ethanol industry relies on fossil fuels to produce ethanol) on a per unit of energy produced basis.

Job losses of over 100,000 are a complete falsehood perpetuated by the ethanol industry. See a study here; which explains that job losses are likely to be under 1,000 because of the RFS mandating ethanol production.

Finally, Barr requests a fair and comprehensive debate including the “philosophical pros and cons” of federal tax policy. Then sneaks in the fact that despite the VEETC the ethanol industry is a net contributor to tax revenue. This is probably true, though it ignores the numerous state level subsidies and the years and year of subsidies when net tax revenues were likely negative. Furthermore, the net tax revenue of the ethanol industry would likely be higher under a scenario where the U.S. taxpayers didn’t write a $6 billion check each year supporting them.

Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding conflicting ideas simultaneously. Let’s hope its not hurting Mr. Barr too much this week as he recovers from a disgraceful opinion piece.

Next Entries →