Blog

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.

Ben Lieberman on Consumer Costs of Regulations

by Marc Scribner on October 18, 2010

in videos

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRb2U8XzIlY 285 234]

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.

EPA Ozone Standard Would Destroy 7.3 Million Jobs, Study Estimates

by Marlo Lewis on October 18, 2010

in Science

A recent study by the Manufacturer’s Alliance/MAPI finds that EPA’s proposed revision of the “primary” (health-based) national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for ozone would have devastating economic impacts, such as:

  • Impose $1 trillion in annual compliance burdens on the economy between 2020 and 2030.
  • Reduce GDP by $687 billion in 2020 (3.5% below the baseline projection).
  • Reduce employment by 7.3 million jobs in 2020 (a figure equal to 4.3% of the projected labor force in 2020).

In a companion report, the Senate Republican Policy Committee estimates the job losses and  “energy tax” burden (compliance cost + GDP reduction) each State will incur if EPA picks the most stringent ozone standard it is considering.

The costs of tightening ozone standards are likely to overwhelm the benefits, if any, as Joel Schwartz and Steven Hayward explain in chapter 7 of their book, Air Quality in America: A Dose of Reality on Air Pollution Levels, Trends, and Health Risks. 

So let’s see — we have emission regulations that function as de-facto energy taxes, and the costs far outweigh the putative benefits. Sound familiar? The resemblance to Waxman-Markey is more than superficial, because if stringent enough, air pollution regulations can restrict fossil energy use no less than carbon taxes or greenhouse cap-and-trade schemes.

For more information on EPA’s proposed ozone NAAQS and the MAPI study, see my post today on CEI’s Open Market.Org.

How President Obama’s Energy Policy Is Like the Bowl Championship Series

by William Yeatman on October 18, 2010

in Blog

On GQ’s blog, there’s an interesting interview with two acclaimed sports writers, about the Bowl Championship Series. As millions of Americans know well, the BCS is the complicated system that chooses a national champion in the billion dollar college football industry. There are more than 100 schools vying for the crystal football awarded to the BCS champion, so it’s not surprising that every year, more than 100 schools are dissatisfied with a system didn’t crown them #1. That is, the BCS is universally reviled.

So we all know and hate the BCS, yet even college football enthusiasts like me don’t know how it works. Somewhat paradoxically, this might be the very reason it persists, according to these two sports reporters,

GQ: What was the thing your reporting that surprised you the most or caught you off guard?

2 Sports Reporters: How little even the people in college sports know how this [BCS] works. It’s less of a conspiracy as much as it’s people just too uninterested or incapable of figuring out what the real deal is.

No one likes the BCS, but it fumbles on, because it’s too arcane to be bothered with. I think this dynamic is represented well by Kaiser Soce’s famous admission in the Usual Suspects that the devil’s best trick is to make people think he doesn’t exist.

Something very similar is going on with President Barack Obama’s energy policies. Americans don’t like energy taxes-especially ones they didn’t vote for-but they can’t be unhappy when they are oblivious. After all, ignorance is bliss. Undoubtedly, Obama’s energy policies will make energy more expensive (see here, here, and here), yet it is achieved primarily through the impossibly convoluted procedures of the regulatory state with which virtually no one is familiar. Behind this cloak, the President proceeds apace with his anti-energy agenda, without engendering unwelcome scrutiny.

More Fuel Ethanol – And More Trouble – On The Way

by Ben Lieberman on October 15, 2010

in Blog

Adding ethanol to the gasoline supply raises the cost of driving, boosts food prices, gobbles up subsidies, and has failed to live up to its environmental promise. But there’s good news – the Environmental Protection Agency may let us use more of it.
EPA recently announced that E15 – gasoline with up to 15 percent ethanol blended in – has been approved for use in cars and trucks built since 2007. Until this decision, no more than 10 percent ethanol was allowed. The federal government is still conducting testing to determine whether older vehicles can use E15 without problems, and until that decision is made gas stations will be reluctant to carry it. Beyond cars and trucks, a coalition of producers and owners of watercraft, motorcycles and off-road vehicles, and gasoline-using equipment continue to express concerns that E15 will compromise performance and possibly damage engines.
Given the increasing ethanol mandate – 13 billion gallons of corn based ethanol and other renewable fuels must be added to the fuel supply in 2010, increasing to 36 billion by 2022 – raising the limit to E15 was necessary in order to incorporate the mandated amounts into the fuel supply. But the risk to millions of vehicle and equipment owners only adds to the problems created by the mandate. Ethanol has not lowered and in fact has increased the cost of driving. And the diversion of nearly a third of the nation’s corn supply from food to fuel use has raised the costs not only of corn itself but related items like corn-fed meat and dairy.
In addition to the mandate, ethanol benefits from billions in tax breaks as well as protectionist tariffs that limit competition against sugar ethanol from Brazil.
While the costs of ethanol have been higher than anticipated, the claimed air quality benefits and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are failing to materialize. Indeed, several major environmental groups have joined in the fight against E15.
At least on the tax and tariff front, there may be a chance to stem the tide. The tax credit of 45 cents per gallon of ethanol (currently costing about $6 billion a year) as well as the tariffs are set to expire by the end of the year. Allowing them to end would be the first step to rein in the ethanol mistake.

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.

In the News, 13 October 2010

by William Yeatman on October 15, 2010

in Blog

Global Warming / Environment / Energy:

Is climate change activism dead?:
“In a wood panelled room in East London more than 100 people, including Britain’s only Green MP Caroline Lucas, gathered earlier this week for the ‘Climate Rendezvous’. The meeting was organised by activists Climate Rush to discuss strategies for raising the profile of climate change before international talks in Cancun, Mexico next month.”

‘Dual flush’ toilets among conservation proposals OK’d by Council:
“Under a law passed by the City Council today, new toilets will have to be high water efficient or “dual-flush,” which allow users to choose between a high pressure flush for solid waste, and a low-pressure flush for liquid.”

Russia agrees to build nuclear plant in Venezuela:
“Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez reached a deal with Russia on Friday to build a nuclear power plant in the South American country and negotiated several other agreements in energy and other areas.”

Reform of Toxic Chemicals Law Collapses as Industry Flexes Its Muscles:
“Fire retardants in baby blankets, nano-particles in cosmetics, plastics in water bottles and anti-bacterial agents in soaps.”

The Carbon Cycle and Royal Society Math:
“The recent “rebellion” by senior members of the Royal Society (RS) forced it to revise their guide “Climate change: a summary of the science”. The new guide, published on 30 September 2010, has a single paragraph under the heading The Carbon Cycle and Climate. In that, it says:”

Cooler Heads Digest 15 October 2010

by William Yeatman on October 15, 2010

in Blog, Cooler Heads Digest

In the News

Time To Get Real about Climate Change
Tom Harris, Washington Times, 15 October 2010

Renewable Energy Standards Are Climate Policy in Disguise
E. Calvin Beisner, Washington Times, 15 October 2010

Pachauri To Stay on at IPCC
Louise Gray, Telegraph, 15 October 2010

Is It Time To Drop Cap-and-Trade?
Myron Ebell, Politico Energy Arena, 14 October 2010

Embarrassing Volt Charges
Eric Peters, American Spectator, 14 October 2010

Flaws in Liberal Claims about Economic Impacts of Climate Policies
Jim Manzi, New Republic, 13 October 2010

Another Proposed Energy Tax
Daren Bakst, MasterResource.org, 13 October 2010

Obama’s Energy Regs Are Invading Your Home
Ben Lieberman, New York Post, 11 October 2010

News You Can Use

“No Trend” in Global Hurricane Activity

World Climate Report this week summarized a new peer reviewed study demonstrating that there has been “no trend” in global tropical cyclone activity from 1965 to 2008.

Inside the Beltway

Myron Ebell

When Lifting a Moratorium is Keeping a Moratorium

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar this week lifted the moratorium on deep-water oil exploration off the Louisiana and Texas coasts.  However, the moratorium is still in practical effect until the Department of the Interior starts granting new drilling permits.  That is not likely to happen quickly because the Department is formulating stricter safety rules that must be complied with before any permit will be issued.

What’s more, Salazar has used BP’s deep-water offshore oil leak as cover for drastically reducing shallow-water drilling permits.  Since the BP disaster in April, the Department has been issuing shallow-water permits at about a tenth the normal rate.  It’s becoming clearer every day that the Obama Administration is slowly strangling domestic oil production-onshore as well as offshore.  This will mean higher oil imports and the decline of America’s oil industry.  Here’s what Tom Pyle of the Institute for Energy Research said about the lifting of the Gulf moratorium, and here’s what I wrote for Politico’s Energy Arena.

Ethanol Follies

The Environmental Protection Agency this week approved the use of E15-that is, gasoline with 15% ethanol-for vehicles produced in the 2007 model year and later.  They will also study whether to approve E15’s use in older vehicles.  Currently, gasoline can be sold with no more than 10% ethanol.

Auto manufacturers contend that using E15 can damage engines.  The reason for approving E15 is that the huge ethanol mandate contained in the 2007 anti-energy bill is ramping up.  In the near future, refiners will be required to buy more ethanol than they can blend in E10.  My CEI colleague Ben Lieberman has written about the EPA’s decision here.

It is rumored that Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack is soon going to announce that the Obama Administration supports continuing the 45 cents per gallon tax credit for ethanol and the 54 cents per gallon tariff on imported ethanol.  The credit and tariff are set to expire at the end of the year unless the Congress votes to extend them.  There has been some disagreement in the ethanol industry over what types of federal taxpayer handouts should be pursued.  A confidential memo that CEI has obtained reveals that the major industry groups have now agreed on what they want.  They want every type of handout that they can think up.

No doubt Congress will give Big Corn most of what’s on their list.  But there is no reason why taxpayers should continue subsidizing ethanol after three decades of subsidies.  There is also no good reason for the mandate, but that’s a battle for another year.  This year, the Congress can simply say, It’s time to drop the ethanol subsidy and the tariff.

Across the States

Polling Hijinx

Two weeks ago, a LA Times/Public Policy Institute of California poll indicated that the vote on Proposition 23, a November ballot initiative to suspend the State’s global warming law until unemployment dropped to 5.5%, would be very close. According to the poll, 43 percent of likely voters favored Proposition 23, 42 percent opposed it and 15 percent didn’t know how they would vote. Last week, Reuters/Ipsos released a poll on the same topic, but with very different results: 49 percent of those polled opposed the initiative and 37 percent favored it. Although the divergent results initially were interpreted as a swing in public opinion against Proposition 23, Reuters has since pulled the poll due to biased questioning that cast doubt on its accuracy.

Around the World

China

Last Friday, preparatory negotiations for the 16th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change concluded in China amid recriminations between the host and the U.S. delegation. After top U.S. climate envoy Todd Stern criticized China’s refusal to agree to binding emissions cuts, the Chinese delegation likened the U.S. to a pig preening itself.

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.

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →