Myron Ebell

Shocking News: The BBC Discovers Reality

by Myron Ebell on October 13, 2009

in Blog, Kyoto Negotiations, Science

Regular viewers of BBC News or  readers of their web site know that the BBC has been the leading promoter of global warming alarmism among the major media.  It therefore comes as real news that the BBC has recognized that the lack of any global warming for the past decade presents a problem for the alarmists to explain.  BBC weatherman and climate correspondent Paul Hudson published an article last Friday titled, “What Happened to Global Warming?”

There is nothing remotely new in anything Hudson reports, but the article is astonishing for what it reveals about the changing grounds of the debate.  Hudson concludes:  “One thing is for sure.  It seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over.  Indeed some would say it is hotting up.”

Naturally, the alarmists are not amused.  Nor will they be amused by Debra Saunders’s column in the San Francisco Chronicle or the fact that the Drudge Report featured the BBC story

Fantasizing about a low-carbon future

by Myron Ebell on September 15, 2009

in Blog

I attended an excellent briefing  today on “Creating a low-carbon future” by Michael Howard of the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI).  The event  was hosted by the U. S. Energy Association and its executive director, Barry Worthington.   EPRI has done a lot of work on how the electricity sector could meet the greenhouse gas emissions target in the Waxman-Markey energy-rationing bill.  That target is economy-wide emissions 83% below 2005 levels by 2050.

Howard said that EPRI wanted to identify a strategy by which the electric sector could be de-carbonized affordably.  Here’s the background and how EPRI would do it:

The decisions made today and in the next few years will shape electric generation in 2050, so we have to make the right decisions starting now.  Electricity generation accounts for about one-third of the 2005 U. S. total of six billion metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions.  Electric rates in constant dollars have been remarkably flat for the past forty years.

EPRI has identified two paths to meeting the 83% reduction target.  The first is by deploying a full portfolio of energy sources.  A full portfolio would most notably include expanded nuclear power and widespread carbon capture and storage for coal and natural gas.  The second is by deploying a limited portfolio of sources that would exclude nuclear and carbon capture and storage.

What is most apparent in EPRI’s modeling is that the limited portfolio approach would end the use of coal completely by 2030.  Renewables would go up, but the biggest increases would be in the use of natural gas.  The result is that electricity would become very expensive, with rates tripling by 2050 in constant dollars.  In addition, we would be forced to use much less electricity in order to meet the emissions reduction targets.

The full portfolio scenario projects that most of the cuts would be made by building new nuclear power plants and new coal plants that capture and store 90% of the carbon dioxide emissions produced.  Natural gas use would go down considerably.  EPRI projects that electric rates would not quite double by 2050 were the full portfolio approach pursued.  Enforced reductions in use would only be about half as severe under the full portfolio compared to the limited portfolio.

The full portfolio scenario sounds very nice, but it’s fantasy.  It has almost nothing to do with the real world.  What EPRI (understandably) does not include in their models are the increasing political, regulatory, and legal obstacles to building new power plants.  Even if carbon capture and storage technology becomes commercially viable by 2020 (which is highly unlikely), it will take decades to permit and build more than a handful of coal plants that capture the carbon dioxide, the pipelines to transport it, and the underground pockets to store it.   Permitting delays will put pipeline siting and construction years behind schedule.  Lawsuits will be filed claiming that pressurized CO2 is too dangerous to be allowed.   Similarly, a few new nuclear power plants may be built in the next twenty years, but building a lot of new plants will take decades to overcome the permitting obstructions.

These obstacles do not apply only to coal and nuclear plants.  Proposed wind and solar energy projects are being blocked and delayed all around the country.  Bobby Kennedy, jnr., is leading the campaign to block a big wind farm off Cape Cod, where his family own valuable, scenic vacation property.  At the same time, Kennedy has lashed out at local environmental pressure groups at the other end of the country that are trying to block a big solar energy development in the Mojave Desert that he has invested in.  Even if both projects eventually get built, they are being delayed for years.  This is a problem that the environmental pressure groups have helped to create and don’t want to admit exists.  It means that the limited portfolio approach modeled by EPRI is fantasy, too.

One of the problems with relying on EPRI’s or any of the economic models to predict the costs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions is that they assume that political decisions will be made in a rational, orderly way that will allow economic decisions to be made in an efficient way.  The Waxman-Markey energy rationing bill (H. R. 2454) is just the latest disproof of this assumption.  The bill creates a cap-and-trade program to reduce emissions and then adds several hundred other programs to pay off individual special interests.  Nearly all these programs get in the way of the efficient working of cap-and-trade.  They will raise the costs of making mandatory reductions beyond what any model can predict.

Divvying up the booty

by Myron Ebell on August 7, 2009

The Senate Finance Committee held a hearing Tuesday on how to divvy up the booty (that is, allocate the ration coupons) under a cap-and-trade system.  John Stephenson, testifying on behalf of the U. S. Government Accountability Office, noted the obvious: cap-and-trade works by increasing energy prices and that poor people feel the most pain because they spend a higher proportion of their incomes on energy than wealthier people.  Stephenson testified: “According to economic literature, in the absence of compensatory measures by the government, a cap-and-trade program could have a disproportionate impact on low-income households, since they generally spend a higher percentage of their income on energy and energy-intensive goods and services than do higher-income households.”

On the subject of giving away the ration coupons to utilities and other emitters in order to minimize price increases, Stephenson was very clear: “Furthermore, attempts to keep energy prices low could increase the cost of the program to the economy. Rising prices for energy and energy-intensive goods are critical to the success of the program, because these ‘price signals’ create incentives for both covered entities and consumers to conserve energy, and thereby reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. To the extent that price signals are not preserved, fewer households and businesses will change their behavior in response to these signals. This could reduce the economic efficiency of a cap-and-trade program, since some of the less costly emissions reduction opportunities would be foregone.”

Alan D. Viard of the American Enterprise Institute explained exactly where the proceeds of free ration coupons would go: “Free allocation of cap-and-trade allowances to firms in unregulated markets is equivalent to imposing a carbon tax while using the revenue to make transfer payments to stockholders.”

Nathaniel O. Keohane testified on behalf of the Environmental Defense Fund, a front group for big corporations hoping to get rich off cap-and-trade legislation.  He said that the Waxman-Markey bill as passed by the House is an excellent start that the Senate only needs to improve around the edges.  Yes, indeed, that’s why every big company and industry is now lining up at the Senate trough oinking for more free ration coupons.

Massive Energy Tax Taking Shape in Congress

by Myron Ebell on May 13, 2009

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Beverly Hills), Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, announced late Tuesday that the full committee would mark up the Waxman-Markey energy rationing bill next week and that he planned to vote the bill out of committee before the Memorial Day recess which begins on 22nd May.  Waxman also released some details of the compromise bill that he and Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) have negotiated with Blue Dog and other moderate Democrats on the committee.

This bill should not be improved; it should be defeated.

Here are some of the key provisions in the new Waxman-Markey compromise energy-rationing bill:

Targets and timetables:

  • 2005 greenhouse gas emissions baseline
  • -17% by 2020
  • -42% by 2030
  • -83% by 2050

Free ration coupons:

  • 35% to local electric distribution companies, phasing out in 10-15 years
  • 15% to energy-intensive industries that compete with imports (steel, cement, paper, etc.), phasing out by 2% per year (as I understand it that would be 13% in year 2, 11% in year 3, etc.)
  • 1% to 5% to oil refineries
  • Remaining coupons would be auctioned.

Sharing the booty:

  • Some revenues raised from auctioning the ration coupons would be dedicated to helping the auto industry and renewable energy.

Renewable requirements for electric utilities:

  • 20% total renewables and efficiency gains
  • 15% renewables by 2020
  • 5% efficiency improvements by 2020
  • With a 3% swing.  For example, 12% renewable plus 8% efficiency gains = 20%.

Threatening a trade war:

The President would be granted authority to levy carbon tariffs beginning in 2025.

Here’s What You Need To Know about the Waxman-Markey Bill

1. It’s a tax.

2. It’s an indirect, hidden, sneaky tax, but it’s a tax.

3. It’s a tax on energy that will raise prices on energy and all goods and services that are produced with or use energy.

4. It’s a tax that will fall more heavily on poorer people because poorer people spend a higher percentage of their incomes on energy than do wealthier people.

5. It’s not a one-time or steady tax, but a tax that will cause energy prices to increase every year.

6. It’s a tax that will destroy jobs in energy-intensive industries, which are concentrated in the States that use coal for electricity.

7. It’s a tax that will raise energy prices more in States that depend on coal for electricity.

8. It’s a tax that will create perpetual economic stagnation.

Navajo Nation Steps Up to Supply America’s Energy Needs

by Myron Ebell on January 23, 2009

in Politics

Greenwire has a long lead story (subscription required) in today's edition by Daniel Cusick about the plans of the Navajo Nation to build three huge new coal-fired power plants totaling 5,300 megawatts in order to exploit their enormous coal resources.  These new plants could supply enough electricity for approximately four million homes in the rapidly growing cities of the Southwest.

In an interview accompanying the story, Navajo President Joe Shirley, Jr., responded to a question about whether he was concerned about all the greenhouse gas emissions that these plants would produce by saying:

“That's a resource that was put there by the Creator for us to use. … To have the Creator bring that about, and then to say, 'Hey, we don't want that,' I don't think that's right. We need to develop it.”

While many of the nation's major utilities advocate energy-rationing policies, such as cap-and-trade, that would price coal out of the market and thereby lead to rapid increases in electricity prices for consumers and manufacturers and probably to chronic regional blackouts, it's great to see the Navajos stepping forward to help supply the energy that America needs.

Global Warming Drops to Bottom of Public Concerns

by Myron Ebell on January 22, 2009

in Politics

Andrew Revkin of the New York Times has just posted a piece on Dot Earth that discusses a recent poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press that finds that global warming has dropped to the bottom of people's concerns.  Asked to rate their top priorities from a list of twenty issues, only 31% listed global warming as one of their top priorities.  That's down five percent from last year.  The biggest drop was for protecting the environment, which dropped fifteen points to 41%.  For comparison, the top concerns were the economy at 85%, jobs at 82, and terrorism at 76%.

That's the background for trying to enact energy-rationing programs that can only work if they raise energy prices considerably.  Perhaps Al Gore needs to raise more than the $300 million goal of his We can Solve It advertising campaign, which is designed to convince people that they agree with him that global warming is our most serious problem and demands immediate and radical action (such as replacing all the coal-fired power plants that supply half of America's electricity within ten years).  Although Mr. Gore has insisted that the American people already agree with him on global warming, this poll demonstrates that his mass media advertising campaign is going to be an uphill climb. 

Next Entries →