But even a glance at their article shows how little substance there is to any of these promises. No new nuclear power plants will be built unless there is somewhere to store the waste. Here’s what Kerry and Graham say about that: “We must also do more to encourage serious investment in research and development to find solutions to our nuclear waste problem.” In other words, not finish the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada that the federal government has already spent billions on, but which Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and President Obama oppose. Carbon capture and storage technology is more than a decade away from being commercially available. Even if it works and is affordable, environmental pressure groups will sue to block permits for the pipelines and underground storage sites necessary to transport and store the pressurized carbon dioxide. Here’s what Kerry and Graham say: “…we need to provide new financial incentives for companies to develop carbon capture and sequestration technology. ” Not a word about limiting lawsuits that would block projects.

Kerry and Graham support a border tax to protect American jobs from products produced in countries that don’t commit to reducing their emissions. That is an admission that energy prices are going to go up and so are the prices of goods and services that are produced with or use energy. Consumers will be poorer as a result and hence will be able to afford fewer goods and services. Bye-bye manufacturing jobs. They also claim that their as-yet-to-be-written bill will reduce our imports of foreign oil. That’s plausible, but not exactly correct. As our economy declines, we will need less oil. But it will reduce U. S. and Canadian production first because the production costs are much higher here than in Saudi Arabia.

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.

Highlights:

The bill gives away over three-quarters of the rationing coupons, auctioning off just 18 percent until 2020. CBO estimates in the first ten years, the bill would bring in revenues of $845.6 billion, but increase federal spending by $821.2 billion—a $24.4 billion net gain over ten years.

CBO estimates that the cost of mandates in the bill would well exceed the annual threshold established in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act for intergovernmental and private-sector mandates. One of these mandates is requirement for States’ to establish greenhouse gas registries plus about $1 billion annually for public entities to comply with the greenhouse gas program.

The program would start with 4,627 million metric tons of CO2-equivalent (MT-CO2e) coupons in 2012 and over the next four years grow to 5,482 million MT-CO2e. Then they would decline by 100 to 150 million MT-CO2e per year to 2,035 million MT-CO2e in 2050, about 14 percent of projected emissions from business-as-usual projections.

The amount of coupons auctioned actually drops from 29.6% in 2012 and 2013 to 17.5% through 2019, while the free allocations (i.e,windfall profits) increase to 82.5%.

The new carbon market would exceed $60 billion by 2012.

The banking of coupons in the bill increases allowance prices by 13 percent by 2019.

CBO estimates that covered entities would use 230 million domestic offsets (230 MT-CO2e) in 2012 and 300 million in 2020, plus 190 million international offsets in 2012 and 425 million in 2020.

CBO expects that some regions of the country—particularly the southeast—would probably not generate sufficient RECs to satisfy the federal standard, and therefore, would choose to make compliance payments.

CBO estimates $8.2 billion in federal agencies’ administrative costs from 2010 to 2019.

The American Clean Energy and Security Act is an awful piece of legislation designed to tax energy. In order to win over Democrats on the Ways and Means Committee, Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Beverly Hills), a co-author of the bill, had to buy them off by promising to redistribute the proceeds of the energy tax-which the Obama administration says will cost as much as $2 trillion through 2020-to industries in their districts.

The only highlight from day one was the opening statement of Rep. John Barrow (D-Georgia), which seemed to indicate that he will oppose this expensive energy bill. He becomes the first Democrat on the Committee to do so. Hopefully, he is not the last. Reps. Eliot Engel (D-New York) and Charlie Melancon (D-Lousiana) seemed to hedge. They are likely holding out for more booty from Waxman.

Today, the Republicans on the Committee, led by Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), plan on introducing 450 amendments to the bill. Democrats will offer far fewer amendments.

As I write, Rep. John Dingell (D-Michigan) is proposing an amendment to create a clean energy bank, despite the fact that the Department of Energy already administers a $40 billion clean energy bank. That bank, however, isn’t good enough for Dingell because it doesn’t transfer enough taxpayer money to auto companies in his district.

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.

This is not the first lame brained green car scheme to go awry. A year ago, Bloomberg reported on a federal program to buy flex-fueled cars that can run on E-85, a fuel blend containing 85% ethanol. E-85 supposedly is less carbon-intensive than gasoline, so the program was meant to reduce greenhouse gases. However, there was one big problem: Federal employees found it more convenient to use gasoline than E-85, which isn’t availible in most fueling stations. As most flex-fueled cars are gas-guzzling sports utility vehicles, the program actually resulted in increased gasoline usage and higher greenhouse gas emissions. Whoops!

The Center for Climate Strategies and their fellow economic holocaust deniers in North Carolina continued their shenanigans this week as they formally released 56 recommendations to create artificial green jobs at the expense of useful ones. The state's Climate Action Plan Advisory Group (CAPAG — sounds like some kind of garment, doesn't it? "That's one ugly CAPAG you're wearing!") posted its final report this week, which is not dissimilar to what they've done with other state climate commissions.

What is different with North Carolina, as opposed to the other states, is that CCS went out of their way to go to an outside entity — Appalachian State University's (should be called "Alternative") Energy Center — to conduct an additional economic analysis of their recommendations. The reason for this is obvious: my colleagues at the John Locke Foundation have pounded away for over a year at CCS's/CAPAG's willful disregard for current climate science and trends; their absurd economic claims; and their suspect changing of numbers, seemingly on a whim. It got so bad that CCS felt the need to shore up their credibility by overhauling the personnel page on their Web site to emphasis more economics credentials.

Anyway, CCS subcontracted the Energy Center to put lipstick on their pig, and the ASU gang used a distinctly rosy shade (PDF) in doing so. Here's what the swine left on the CAPAG collar: a projection that the state would realize 15,000 new jobs, $565 million in "employee and proprietor income," and $302 million in gross state product by 2020. Compare that to what the Beacon Hill Institute, who analyzed CAPAG's recommendations for the Locke Foundation earlier this year, found: "By 2011, the state would shed more than 33,000 jobs, annual investment would drop by about $502.4 million, real disposable income by more than $2.2 billion, and real state Gross Domestic Product by about $4.5 billion." So I guess the question boils down to, whose analysis do you believe: a political science graduate student's or PhD economists'?

But wait, there's one final knee-slapper: In an effort to legitimize the Energy Center's study, they enlisted Adam Rose to track down six peer reviewers for comment. That wouldn't be so unusual except that Rose is listed by CCS as one of their "team members," and has been paid for work he's done for CCS in the past. So not surprisingly these peer review comments (kept anonymous, and do you really wonder why?) lavished praise on the Energy Center's work:

• "I find no logical errors and am impressed by the sophistication of the analysis; it is superior to most impact analyses written over the last decade."
• "I must say that the document is superior to many I see."
• "There is an abundance of careful and thoughtful work on converting the options to reduce greenhouse gases to some accounting measures."
• "Two thumbs up!" (oops — clicked on the "Ebert and Roeper" tab by accident)

All in all, a "certified fresh" review if you're projecting a fantasy tale, but if reality is your measuring stick, then you've got splat.

The answer — which is that they don't understand economics — is revealed in a blog post by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer's Lisa Stiffler. Her report explains a review by the Beacon Hill Institute (co-sponsored by the Washington Policy Center) of the state's Climate Advisory Team recommendations to raise the costs of energy so high that people will want to move their tailpipe emissions to other countries.

That was a joke - the tailpipe emissions part.

Anyway, the BHI study is similar to ones they've done for other states where the economic analyses of costs associated with climate commissions' recommendations are severely underestimated. In Washington, BHI found among other things that the Climate Advisory Team "misinterprets costs as benefits." And then there is this revelation from reporter Stiffler:

For example, jobs are credited as a benefit, but the reviewers said this is actually a cost. This sort of confuses me as I thought job creation was generally a positive step.

Of course it is "a positive step" in the backwards world of journalism, where jobs digging holes for no apparent reason are considered productive.