The British Conservative Party seems intent on fulfilling Prime Minister David Cameron’s promise to be the “greenest government ever.” This week, the coalition government announced it would cut emissions 50 percent, averaged over the years 2023-2027, by 2025. The government conceded that the policy would cost British homes about $700 a year, or 1 percent of Britain’s GDP, which is almost certainly a lowball. There is, however, an escape clause: The targets are binding only if the rest of the European Union commits to the same emissions cuts. Even if the EU were to adopt similar targets, it would not be terribly surprising if a future government suspended or rescinded this ultra-expensive “Green Deal,” as recent polling suggests that only a quarter of Britons believe that the risks of climate change are greater than the benefits.
America is in the midst of a budget crisis, yet the Environmental Protection Agency found $25,000 to help a radical green group break the law. According to the Heritage Foundation’s Robert Gordon,
“…the agency awarded the Little Village Environmental Justice Organization [LVEJO] a $25,000 environmental justice grant, which was to be directed to ‘…work[ing] in coalition with their partners to implement 3 areas of Climate Change Mitigation…’ The first ‘area’ is to ‘…conduct a grassroots Clean Power Campaign in the Chicago Region to address coal power plant emissions’…After getting the grant, a half dozen activists from LVEJO and other groups were arrested after climbing the fence to a coal-fired power plant and unfurling a banner that read: ‘Close Chicago’s Toxic Coal Plant.'”
Read the entire excellent post here.
Our Dangerous Dependence on Foreign Olive Oil
Matthew Yglesias, Think Progress, 19 May 2011
Sound, Fury, and the Policy of Climate Change
Patrick Michaels, Forbes, 19 May 2011
Phony Fears on ‘Fracking’
Michael Benjamin, New York Post, 19 May 2011
Are Oil Futures Markets Being Manipulated?
Jerry Taylor & Peter Van Doren, Forbes, 19 May 2011
Island Nations Uses Climate Aid To Build Floating Resort
Chris Horner, Daily Caller, 19 May 2011
The Myth of Green Energy Security
Bjorn Lomborg, Project Syndicate, 17 May 2011
1. Ethanol Mandates: In an effort to further “energy independence,”* major agricultural producing countries have enacted Soviet-style production quotas for ethanol, a motor fuel distilled from food.
This year, about a third of the U.S. corn crop will be used to manufacture 13 billion gallons of ethanol. By law, that will increase to 15 billion gallons every year after 2015. The European Union mandates that ethanol distilled primarily from palm oil and wheat, constitute an increasing percentage of the fuel supply, ultimately 10% by 2020.
Global ethanol production is a new and tremendous source of demand for food that has had a significant impact on the price of grains and oilseeds. According to a report commissioned by the World Bank, global demand for fuels made from food accounted for nearly 70% of the historic price spike in wheat, rice, corn, and soy during the summer 2008.
2. Rainforest Protections: Burning rainforests is an important link in the global food supply chain. In Brazil, farmers are clearing the Amazon rainforests to meet rapidly growing global demand for soybeans. In Indonesia, they slash rainforests to harvest palm oil seeds for export to Europe.
[click to continue…]
The Wall Street Journal today reported on a statement by the International Energy Agency’s governing board, calling on oil producing countries to increase their output to “help avoid the negative global economic consequences which a further sharp market tightening [i.e., higher oil prices] could cause.”
Here’s the full IEA statement:
The IEA Governing Board, at its regular quarterly meeting on 18-19 May, examined oil market developments and their impact on the global economy. Despite a near-10% correction since 5 May, oil prices remain at elevated levels driven by market fundamentals, geopolitical uncertainty and future expectations. The IEA Governing Board expressed serious concern that there are growing signs that the rise in oil prices since September is affecting the economic recovery by widening global imbalances, reducing household and business income, and placing upward pressure on inflation and interest rates. As global demand for oil increases seasonally from May to August, there is a clear, urgent need for additional supplies on a more competitive basis to be made available to refiners to prevent a further tightening of the market.
[click to continue…]
Did you know that mixing Mentos Freshness with Coca Cola Classic in a confined space produces explosive entertainment? See for yourself.
Something similar took place in C-Span’s Washington D.C. studio last weekend, when my Competitive Enterprise Institute colleague Myron Ebell and the Center for Biological Diversity’s Bill Snape squared off in a Washington Journal rumble. See for yourself.
Three of the Congress’s most influential energy policymakers this week “urged” the Environmental Protection Agency to delay an ultra-costly regulation targeted at coal-fired power plants, the source of 50 percent of America’s electricity generation. For the sake of keeping the lights on, all Americans should hope the Obama administration heeds these Congressmen’s request.
Senate Environment and Public Works Ranking Member James Inhofe (R-OK), House Energy and Commerce Chair Fred Upton (R-MI), and House Energy and Power Subcommittee Chair Ed Whitfield (R-KY) yesterday sent a letter to Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson demanding a longer comment period for a proposed regulation known as the Utility HAP MACT
[The HAP stands for “Hazardous Air Pollutant,” and the MACT stands for “Maximum Achievable Control Technology”; to learn what these terms entail, read this summary of the regulation, Primer: EPA’s Power Plant MACT for Hazardous Air Pollutants.]
The EPA issued the Utility HAP MACT in mid-March, and it gave the public 60 days to comment. The Congressmen “urge the agency [to] extend the comment period to a minimum of 120 days to allow adequate time for stakeholders to assess and comment on the proposal.”
The extended comment period is well warranted. For starters, the EPA included a number of “pollutants” in the proposed regulation that shouldn’t be there. The EPA’s authority to regulate hazardous air pollutants from power plants is derivative of a study on the public health effect of mercury emissions. The EPA’s proposed regulation, however, would regulate acid gases, non-mercury metals, and organic air toxins, in addition to mercury. Yet the EPA’s evidence only pertains to mercury. The EPA’s authority to regulate these non-mercury emissions, despite their not having been a part of the aforementioned study, will be challenged, and the DC Circuit Court ultimately will decide.
[click to continue…]
Has Subsidy-Scrapping Time Arrived?
Peter Hannaford, American Spectator, 18 May 2011
Energy Subsidies: Our Gifts That Keep on Taking
Larry Bell, Forbes, 17 May 2011
John Huntsman and Global Warming
Greg Pollowitz, Planet Gore, 17 May 2011
An Inconvenient Truth: A Fifth Anniversary Tribute
Mark Hyman, American Spectator, 17 May 2011
One Tiny Cheer for President on Drilling
Nicolas Loris, The Foundry, 16 May 2011
Latest Threat to Wind Power: Prairie Chickens
Steve Everly, Kansas City Star, 15 may 2011
With gas prices hovering near $4/gallon, Democrats are trotting out fanciful “solutions” to temper the price of oil.
On Saturday, President rolled out a three-part plan to relieve Americans’ pain at the pump. The third part was the elimination of Big Oil “subsidies” (in fact, they are tax breaks, not subsidies). This doesn’t make any sense. The point of the tax breaks to Big Oil is to decrease the cost of production. That is, they make oil cheaper to extract. Removing these “subsidies” will in no way decrease the price of gas.
Meanwhile, Senate Democrats are blaming evil “speculators” for bidding up the price of oil. This is utter malarkey. The price of oil is dictated by a global market. Ill-defined “speculators” are a straw man.
Removing Big Oil’s “subsidies” and prosecuting “speculators” are empty political gimmicks of the sort that the 2008 version of Obama campaigned against. (So much for “Change,” right?) I suspect that the President and Senate Democrats are relying on these bogus non-solutions because, otherwise, they’d have to acknowledge that the price of oil is a function of supply and demand. And if they concede that the market, and not “subsidies” or “speculators,” is to blame for high oil prices, then they’d also have to acknowledge that increasing supply would decrease the price. That is, they’d have to admit that “drill, baby, drill” works. Of course, they don’t want to do that, because doing so would upset their environmentalist base.
[click to continue…]
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
CEI.org