Czech President Vaclav Klaus on Monday gave the inaugural annual lecture at The Global Warming Policy Foundation in London. To watch Klaus’s lecture, titled “The Climate Change Doctrine,” click here. To read a transcript, click here. President Klaus wrote a related oped (“An Anti-Human Ideology“) in the National Post.

Inside the Beltway

Myron Ebell

Obama Convinces Wealthy Voters

President Barack Obama is still talking about how his policies are creating a new green energy economy, but he is aiming the message at smaller and smaller audiences. On Thursday night he appeared at a $30,000 a plate fundraiser at the Palo Alto home of Google Vice President Marissa Mayer and her husband, Zachary Bogue, a real estate investor. The San Francisco Chronicle reported the President’s brief remarks: “‘We’re taking on clean energy in ways that we haven’t seen before,’ made the largest investment in clean energy in history, and ‘we’re seeing solar panels and wind turbines’ all across the country, he said.”

The people who can get excited about the President’s vision are restricted to a relatively few wealthy individuals who are becoming wealthier from government subsidies and mandates for such things as solar panels and wind turbines. No doubt, several were in the audience in Palo Alto. The message doesn’t resonate as well with the vast majority being victimized by these redistributionist policies. That’s why the President is spending less time talking to the public and more time talking to big donors to the Democratic Party, who are getting their money’s worth from this Administration.

EPA Moves Ahead with Economy-Wrecking Regs

Robin Bravender in Politico reports that the Environmental Protection Agency will propose new rules for greenhouse gas emissions from big trucks and buses next week. According to Dan Becker of the Safe Climate Campaign, EPA is going to require a 20% cut in emissions by 2018. Bravender reports that Becker considers this goal too modest. He favors 35%.

It is not clear how freight trucks are going to be re-engineered to comply. It is clearly already in the interests of truck manufacturers and the freight industry to make trucks as fuel efficient as possible. Perhaps with our new slimmer economy, they can just haul 20% less freight.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson also told reporters this week that the guidance document on what industry must do to comply with the Clean Air Act’s regulation of greenhouse gas emissions by stationary sources (such as power plants) will be released shortly. EPA plans to start requiring PSD (Prevention of Significant Deterioration) permits from large emitters on January 1, 2011, so the several-month delay in issuing the guidance document is likely to create a regulatory mess in the new year.

Across the States

Ben Lieberman

Megabucks Behind Effort To Stop Prop 23

Green activists and allied rent seekers like to portray themselves as the underdogs against big business in their environmental causes. The battle over Proposition 23 – the California ballot measure to suspend the state’s global warming law until unemployment is under control – is certainly no exception. But they have David and Goliath backwards here; those spending to defeat the measure and keep California cap and tax in place have outgunned supporters of reform by at least 3 to 1.

Compared to the $9 million or so in favor of Prop 23, including most from oil companies, the $28 million to kill this measure has gotten relatively little attention. Only a minor percentage of this amount has come in the form of small contributions from regular Californians – little wonder since it is defending a global warming policy that would drive up fossil fuel costs and kill jobs just as a similar policy has done in Spain. In fact, most of the money has come in the form of six and seven figure contributions from big environmental groups, Hollywood bigshots, and, most disturbingly, opportunists like venture capitalists John Doerr and Vinod Khosla, who hope to secure a guaranteed market selling alternative energy and vehicles far too expensive to compete otherwise.

Around the World

It Could Happen Here, Part 1

In 2007, the Spanish government of Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero passed a law that guaranteed solar power producers a price for power more than 10 times the 2007 average wholesale price paid to conventional energy suppliers. The generous subsidies sparked a rush to solar, and taxpayer costs mounted. Today, the government owes $172 billion to renewable energy investors, but it doesn’t have the means to meet its obligations in the face of rising budget deficits. As a result, more than 50,000 other Spanish solar entrepreneurs face financial disaster.

It Could Happen Here, Part 2

Next year Germany’s renewable energy tax will increase to 3.5 cents/kWh. For comparison, that’s more that’s 30% of the average kWh price paid by Americans.

The Cooler Heads Digest is the weekly e-mail publication of the Cooler Heads Coalition. For the latest news and commentary, check out the Coalition’s website, www.GlobalWarming.org.

Saving the Polar Bear or Obama’s CO2 Agenda?

by William Yeatman on October 21, 2010

in Blog

This afternoon I attended an informative panel, “Saving the Polar Bear or Obama’s CO2 Agenda?,” on how the Endangered Species Act is easily manipulated by environmentalist lawyers intent on gumming up economic activity. The panel was videotaped, so you can see it for yourself at the Heritage Foundation’s website. If, however, you don’t have an hour, then here are the highlights:

Robert Gordon of the Heritage Foundation cited the Iowa Pleistocene snail. Seemingly, the snail is a smashing success story. It was listed as an endangered species in 1978, and after implementing protections, the snail recovered. Indeed, it far-exceeded the criteria first set out to de-list. Nonetheless, the Obama administration upgraded its peril. Why? Because, the Obama administration says, the snail is threatened “in the long term” by global warming! This example supported Mr. Gordon’s conclusion, that the Endangered Species Act is a “tool for those that wish to constrict economic activity.”
The Competitive Enterprise Institute’s R.J. Smith questioned which section of the Constitution authorizes the government to favor animals and insects over humans. He joked that the 3^rd amendment prohibits the government from forcing Americans to quarter soldiers, yet the Endangered Species Act can force Americans to give quarter to snails.
I asked Reed Hopper of the Pacific Legal Foundation to flesh out the regulatory consequences of listing the polar bear as an endangered species due to climate change, and his response was sobering. According to Mr. Hopper, a citizen suit provision of the Endangered Species Act means that anyone could sue anyone for harming the polar bear by emitting greenhouse gases. He said it would be “unprecedented.”

In Honor of Ethanol, I Will Recyle . . . a Blog Post

by Marlo Lewis on October 21, 2010

in Politics

At today’s press conference announcing new Obama administration biofuel initiatives (see here, here, and here), Ag Secretary Tom Vilsack mentioned that USDA has a memorandum of understanding with the Federal Aviation Administration to develop bio-based alternatives to jet fuel. Vilsack’s press release describes the MOU as follows:

The Secretary also announced jointly with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) a five year agreement to develop aviation fuel from forest and crop residues and other “green” feedstocks in order to decrease dependence on foreign oil and stabilize aviation fuel costs. Under the partnership, the agencies will bring together their experience in research, policy analysis and air transportation sector dynamics to assess the availability of different kinds of feedstocks that could be processed by bio-refineries to produce jet fuels.

About when will these “non-food” renewable jet fuels become competitive with conventional petroleum-based fuels? Secy. Vilsack did not venture to say. My guess is — quite a long time. Maybe even longer than it takes to make competitive auto fuel out of switch grass, corn stover, and wood waste.

One of my posts from a few months ago, on CEI’s OpenMarket.Org, goes straight to the point, so I recycle it below for your edification and amusement.

Bio-Jet Fuel — The Real $600 Toilet Seat?

The custom-designed $600 toilet seat for P-3C Orion antisubmarine aircraft — often depicted as the epitome of government waste — is an urban legend.

The “seat” was actually a plastic molding that fitted over the entire seat, tank, and toilet assembly, for which the contractor charged the Navy $100 apiece.

However, in the subsidy-driven world of biofuels, government can flush lots of your tax dollars down the gurgler.

DOD’s Quadrenniel Defense Review Report (QDR) crows that in 2009, the Navy “tested an F/A-18 engine on camelina-based biofuel” (pp. 87-88). Camelina is a non-edible plant in the mustard family.

On Earth Day 2010, an F/A-18 taking off from the Warfare Center in Patuxent River, Maryland, became the first aircraft to ”demonstrate the performance of a 50-50 blend of camelina-based biojet fuel and traditional petroleum-based jet fuel at supersonic speeds,” enthuses Renewable Energy World.Com.

At the event, Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus said: “It’s important to emphasize, especially on Earth Day, the Navy’s commitment to reducing dependence on foreign oil as well as safeguarding our environment. Our Navy, alongside industry, the other services and federal agency partners, will continue to be an early adopter of alternative energy sources.”

Renewable Energy World also reports that the Navy ordered 200,000 gallons of camelina-based jet fuel for 2009-2010 and has an option to purchase another 200,000 gallons during 2010-2012. Sounds impressive, but let’s put those numbers in perspective. In just three months in peacetime, the flight crew of a single vessel — the USS NASSAU, a multi-purpose amphibious assault ship – flew more than 2,800 hours and burned over 1 million gallons of jet fuel.

Neither Renewable Energy World nor the QDR mentions how much camelina-based jet fuel costs. Hold on to your (toilet) seat! According to today’s ClimateWire [June 28, 2010; subscription required] the price is $65.00 per gallon. That’s about 30 times more expensive than commercial jet fuel.

Those who wonder why government can’t just mandate a transition to a “beyond petroleum” future should contemplate those numbers.

Chunk It or Chuck It?

by Marita Noon on October 21, 2010

in Blog

Chunk it or chuck it?

Following the demise of cap and trade, a key initiative touted during his campaign, President Obama has admitted defeat on his proposed climate change legislation. Two main problems exist. First America’s citizens are fearful of his plans to “fundamentally change America.” Then, the topic has been in the public debate for the two years of attempted passage and people have come to see it as a hidden tax. At a time when the country is in an economic war, people know we can ill-afford additional costs.

After Harry Reid announced that cap and trade is dead, the President has begun talking about doing the same basic legislation in “chunks“-think bits and pieces that will slip through unnoticed by a battle weary public. The “chunk” strategy is one more attempt to go around the will of the people. Here a chunk, there a chunk, and before you know it you have cap and trade-or some other policy that digs deep into the taxpayer’s pockets.

Instead of “chunking it,” President Obama and congress, should “chuck it.”

Just released, the “Post-Partisan Power” report, acknowledges the need for a new approach. The collaborative effort is supposedly the result of a “yearlong dialogue” between three well-known think tanks: the American Enterprise Institute (conservative) and the Brookings Institute and Breakthrough Institute (liberal-leaning). Yet, their solutions seem to be rooted in the pre-recession economy. The authors presume that people will be content with fees on imported oil, surcharges on electricity, and paying “slightly more” (all report suggestions). Yet, according to MotherJones.com, most Americans aren’t willing to suffer even bare-minimum level of sacrifice for the good of the planet. The “secure funding,” “new appropriations,” and “dedicate revenues” ideas miss the most important point: America is in an economic crisis, not an energy crisis!

Within the report are several viable solutions if America was flush with cash but they fall short when viewed through the filter of borrowing from China to make them happen.

However, we should borrow a few things from China. First, they realize that abundant, available, and affordable energy is essential to growth. So they are building power plants at dizzying rates. Next, the power plants they are building are cleaner and more technologically advanced than anything we have in America-both coal-fueled and nuclear. It has been years since America built a new power plant and the technology, often originating in America, has passed us by while we’ve been trying to push so-called alternative power and increasing the costs of traditional fuels.

The report is critical of America’s dependence on “the same fossil energy sources that have powered our nation since the 19^th century” but fails to acknowledge that these same fuels are now used far more efficiently, effectively, and cleaner. We produce more with less energy and manufacture more responsibly than any other country on earth. We have an abundance of these fuels and our wise use and innovative technologies have expanded the resource. Why are we depending on foreign countries for energy when we have it all here within our borders-especially those who despise us?

“How a limited and direct approach to energy innovation can deliver clean, cheap energy, economic productivity and national prosperity,” is the report‘s subtitle.

How about this for a limited, direct approach:

Expedite the permitting process for the newest technology in proven coal-fueled and nuclear power plants.
Open up access to America’s energy resources.
Use our abundant oil and natural gas for transportation fuels.

This will bring “economic productivity and national prosperity.”

Tell Congress, “don’t chunk cap and trade, chuck it!”

Marita Noon is the Executive Director of Energy Makes America Great Inc., the advocacy arm of CARE (Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy), the New Mexico nonprofit organization advocating for citizens’ right to energy that is abundant, available, and affordable. CARE works on energy issues state, region and nationwide. Find out more at www.EnergyMakesAmericaGreat.org.

Free Market Coalition Urges Congress to Let Ethanol Tax Breaks and Trade Protection Expire

by Marlo Lewis on October 21, 2010

in Politics

Yesterday on this site I explained why a “Do Nothing Congress on Ethanol Would Do a Lot of Good.” I also mentioned that today, a coalition of free market groups would be publishing an open letter advising Congress to let the clock run out on tax favoritism and trade protection for corn ethanol.

The groups issuing the joint letter are the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), Freedom Action, the American Conservative Union, Freedom Works, National Center for Public Policy Research, and National Taxpayers Union.

CEI’s press release appears below. It includes commentary by yours truly on Obama Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack’s announcement of new biofuel initiatives at a press conference this morning, a link to the coalition letter, and a link to video excerpts of a speech in 2006 by then Gov. Tom Vilsack. The video illustrates the famous French adage, plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose (loosely translated, “The more things change, the more special-interest politics stays the same”).

CEI’s press release follows:

Contact:
Nicole Ciandella, 202.331.2773

Tax-Subsidized Ethanol Boondoggle Set to Expire
Coalition Urges Congress to End Tax Breaks Tariff Protection for Ethanol

Special tax credits and tariff protection for ethanol are set to expire at the year’s end. To counter the corn ethanol lobby, which urges Congress to reauthorize these special-interest giveaways plus enact new mandates and subsidies, a coalition of free-market groups advises Congress to “do nothing” and let the clock run out on the tax credit and tariff.

The domestic ethanol industry currently enjoys a 45¢ per gallon “Volumetric Ethanol Tax Credit” (VEETC), which costs taxpayers $5-6 billion annually, and a 54¢ per gallon protective tariff, which prevents lower-cost Brazilian ethanol from competing in U.S. markets.

“Congress has a rare opportunity to avoid $25-30 billion in new deficit spending, ease consumers’ pain at the pump, and scale back political manipulation of energy markets by literally doing nothing,” the coalition told Congress in a letter today.

The groups issuing the joint letter are the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Freedom Action, American Conservative Union, Freedom Works, National Taxpayers Union, and National Center for Public Policy Research.

The coalition released its letter today because Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack held a press conference this morning announcing new Obama Administration biofuel initiatives.

Vilsack said the VEETC should be extended on a “short-term, fiscally responsible” basis, but would not define what that means. Similarly, he said the tariff should “eventually” expire, but would not propose a timetable for phasing it out.

“In 2006, when Secy. Vilsack was Governor of Iowa, he said the exact same things – that the tariff and tax credit eventually had to end,” said Marlo Lewis, Senior Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. “Gov. Vilsack didn’t say then when the phase out should start – and Secy. Vilsack is still not saying.” A video excerpt of Gov. Vilsack’s 2006 remarks on ethanol is available on Youtube.

“For fiscal, humanitarian, and environmental reasons, the ethanol tariff and tax credit must go,” said Lewis.

Read the full coalition letter here.

Rent Seeking Begets More Rent Seeking

by Brian McGraw on October 20, 2010

in Blog

The EPA recently approved a 50% increase in ethanol blends for cars manufactured after 2006, moving from E10 to E15. This means that gas stations are now free to offer E15 as well as E10 as options at the pump. It isn’t likely that many gas stations will be taking advantage of these new rules for a number of reasons.

One important issue is that the EPA has not made it clear who will be liable for consumers who damage their automobiles by using higher blends of ethanol that aren’t appropriate for their vehicle. Automobile manufacturers are worried that they will be held liable through warranties and required to repair engines, retailers share the same concern.

The EPA has not provided sufficient details on these liability issues, despite the E15 approval:

“The EPA said in its proposed E15 label rule that it would not typically hold a fuel retailer liable for customer misfueling into any vehicle, engine or piece of equipment, provided that the station’s pumps were properly labeled. That does little to comfort retail fuel groups such as NACS, which claim that the Clean Air Act includes a provision that allows for citizens to sue retailers for misfuelings. NACS said it is concerned that misfuelings could be both accidental and intentional, and labels may not provide them with enough litigation protection. “

It is funny to see the ethanol industry so frustrated by these burdensome government-imposed regulations, while they ignore the reality that government support of their industry is the basis for much of their revenue in the first place.

In response to problems stemming from confusion at the pump, the National Association of Convenience Stores offered up a brilliant solution: “The easiest way to remedy the situation is to mandate that everything’s full-serve, that you do not allow the customer to have the opportunity to misfuel, either deliberately or unintentionally,” said NACS spokesman Jeff Lenard.

I’m surprised he didn’t mention that it would create millions of green low paying jobs. Mandating full service pumps would benefit large incumbent gasoline franchises at the expense of smaller stations. This was certainly the case in New Jersey (where full-service stations are required), whose gasoline stations were closely involved in overturning propositions to strike down these laws.

A “Do Nothing Congress” on Ethanol Would Do a Lot of Good

by Marlo Lewis on October 20, 2010

in Politics

Congress has a rare opportunity to shave $25-30 billion from the national debt, ease consumers’ pain at the pump, and scale back political manipulation of energy markets by literally doing nothing.

At the stroke of midnight on December 31 of this year, statutory authority for the 45¢ per gallon Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC) and the 54¢ per gallon tariff on imported ethanol will expire.

For economic, humanitarian, and environmental reasons, Congress should sit back and let the grim policy reaper sweep these special-interest giveaways into history’s dustbin, as I explain this week on National Journal’s Energy Blog.

Tomorrow, at the National Press Club, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack will discuss the Obama Administration’s “strategy” to grow the biofuel industry.

I’ve seen no inside info on what Vilsack will say. However, the corn ethanol lobby is pushing for “reforms” that would not only reauthorize the tariff and tax credit but also mandate the production and sale of ethanol-fueled vehicles and provide new subsidies to build a gigantic ethanol pipeline network and install 200,000 ethanol fuel pumps at service stations.

Just in case Vilsack decides to join this bandwagon, and on general principles, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Freedom Action, and other free-market groups will send an open letter tomorow urging Congress to embrace the unheard of option of doing nothing, thereby benefiting taxpayers, consumers, and the environment.

I plan to attend the Vilsack press conference. Will he come out swinging for renewal of the tariff and tax credit? Will he propose new mandates and subsidies? Or will he keep things vague? Stay tuned.

China Entering “Demand Super Cycle” for Coal

by William Yeatman on October 20, 2010

in Blog

In a story today about the surging profits of Peabody Energy (a major American coal producer), Climatewire (subscription required) quoted Peabody Chairman and CEO Gregory Boyce as saying that coal is entering a “demand super cycle” due to exploding Chinese growth. According to Mr. Boyce, “China now forecasts that 290 gigawatts of coal-fueled generation will come online from 2011 to 2015.” He calls the demographic trends in China “overwhelming.”

Two quick snap responses:

There’s a silly meme being bandied about by the mainstream media that China is winning some sort of green energy great game with America. In fact, China is building two coal fired power plants every three weeks, while in the U.S., environmentalist lawyers recently celebrated the scuttling of 100 coal fired plants. We are losing an energy game with China, but the prize isn’t green energy. Rather, it’s affordable, reliable energy. They are building it. We aren’t.
Peabody is looking for a west coast port to increase the export of low cost coal from Wyoming to China. That is, China is welcoming the coal our country is spurning. As a result, we are heading towards a future where the U.S. buys expensive green energy from China (because it is cheaper to manufacture there), while China buys cheap coal from the U.S. Guess whose energy future is more promising?

In the News, 20 October 2010

by William Yeatman on October 20, 2010

in Blog

French President Orders Lifting of Fuel Depot Blockade:
“”Trying to reassert authority over the widespread protests against his plans to reform the pension system, President Nicolas Sarkozy said on Wednesday that he had ordered the authorities to break up blockades of fuel depots that have left a third of the country’s gas stations dry .”

Obama Administration Says It Will Investigate China’s Green Tech Trade Policies:
“The Obama administration announced today that it is launching an investigation into China’s green technology trade policies. The investigation is in response to a lengthy petition filed last month by the United Steelworkers.”

Report: In Obama’s Chicago, stimulus weatherization money buys shoddy work, widespread fraud:
“Projects to weatherize homes are a key part of the Obama administration’s fusion of stimulus spending and the green agenda. But a new report by the Department of Energy has found serious problems in stimulus-funded weatherization work — problems so severe that they have resulted in homes that are not only not more energy efficient but are actually dangerous for people to live in.”

Spain’s “Green Energy” Economy Continues to Implode

by Chris Horner on October 19, 2010

in Blog, Politics

Today’s exhibit about Spain’s economic miracle — you could call it a sector-specific collapse — comes from Bloomberg, a heartbreaking tale of the gravy inevitably running out. It is a tale that, pre-collapse, President Obama expressly sought to emulate and California is still actively pursuing, as is typical for the equally bankrupt California. Obama is now silent about Spain as his model and California claims its law is, er…the “world’s first!”

As happened in Spain, California’s bill is certain to come due long before the preening political class expected. The U.K.’s Global Warming Policy Foundation has a roundup with the top six stories in today’s update being relevant, as well.

So, yes, dear, these “green economy” schemes grow the economy. Of course, then so did Mr. Ponzi’s scheme. And, naturally, the plaintiff’s bar grows the economy, too, because we need a bigger court system and people to craft the instructions on shampoo bottles. Except upon slightly more scrutiny than the statists would like, they actually kill jobs. But if you only focus on this part I’m waving my hands at over here…

And upon such scrutiny, their approach of name-calling and fabrication instead of arguing the merits begins to look pretty good.

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →

Blog

Cooler Heads Digest 22 October 2010

In the News

News You Can Use

Insightful Lecture by Czech President Vaclav Klaus

Inside the Beltway

Obama Convinces Wealthy Voters

EPA Moves Ahead with Economy-Wrecking Regs

Across the States

Megabucks Behind Effort To Stop Prop 23

Around the World

It Could Happen Here, Part 1

It Could Happen Here, Part 2

Saving the Polar Bear or Obama’s CO2 Agenda?

In Honor of Ethanol, I Will Recyle . . . a Blog Post

Chunk It or Chuck It?

Free Market Coalition Urges Congress to Let Ethanol Tax Breaks and Trade Protection Expire

Rent Seeking Begets More Rent Seeking

A “Do Nothing Congress” on Ethanol Would Do a Lot of Good

China Entering “Demand Super Cycle” for Coal

In the News, 20 October 2010

Spain’s “Green Energy” Economy Continues to Implode

Cooler Heads Digest

Subscribe for Updates

CEI on the Web

Contributors