Blog

In the Politico today, there’s a story about how the Natural Resources Defense Council is advising the White House Correspondents’ Association on how to “go green” with their annual dinner. They seem to be taking this very seriously:

Every two weeks, the greening team — including [NRDC senior scientist Allen] Hershkowitz and representatives from the Hilton — held a conference call to make sure every procurement decision and operation at the event would be as green as possible.

The story goes on to explain that they will be offsetting all of the energy use associated with the dinner – including the private jet to fly host Jay Leno out from L.A. and back. With advice from the Portland-based nonprofit the Bonneville Environmental Foundation, they’ve purchased an undisclosed amount of carbon credits. According to Politico’s Lisa Lerer, “Credits purchased for the dinner will help fund the Tatanka Wind Farm on the North Dakota-South Dakota border.”

So far, so good. Except that the Tatanka Wind Farm is already up and running – it went online in July of 2008. The project’s $381 million budget was financed by GE Energy Financial Services and Wachovia. And it’s operated by Acciona Energy, a multi-billion dollar Spanish conglomerate with 40,000 employees and operations in 30 countries.

So, my question is, who is getting the White House Correspondents’ Association’s money? The shareholders of Acciona? GE and Wachovia (now Wells Fargo)? It’s one thing for carbon offset money to, for example, fund a nonprofit organization in the developing world to manage a reforestation project, but how does it make any sense to pay money to a Spanish corporation for operating a wind farm that’s already been privately financed and has been producing energy for almost two years? Am I missing something here?

Well, it’s not really so old. I’m referring to a March 10, 2009 letter by atmospheric scientist John Christy to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. I post it on Open Market and GlobalWarming.Org because it is hard to find on the Internet, and Dr. Christy makes a key point that will need to be made again and again in the upcoming Senate battle over the Murkowski resolution of disapproval to veto EPA’s endangerment finding.

The endangerment finding is the  statutory prerequisite for the joint greenhouse gas/fuel economy standards rule that EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) finalized on April 1, 2010. Veto the endangerment finding, Murkowski foes warn, and NHTSA will have to ”de-couple” its portion of the joint GHG/fuel economy rule, which could delay by a year implementation of model year 2012 fuel economy standards.

Well, boo-hoo! Keeping the model year 2011 standards in place for an extra year would make no perceptible difference in atmospheric CO2 concentrations, average global temperature, weather patterns, or public health, even if one assumes that climate change is a big problem.

Christy’s letter puts this in perspective. For the sake of argument, Christy adopts the IPCC’s warming projections for its mid-range (A1B) emissions scenario. Even if the United States were to adopt immediately a 43 mpg fuel-economy standard, the net reduction in average global temperature would be 0.01°C in 2100. Such a change would be too small to detect. Even more microscopic would be the impact of the 34.1 mpg standard that NHTSA and EPA want to phase in by model year 2016. Whether that standard is delayed for a year or implemented on schedule is climatologically irrelevant.

In contrast, the economic and safety benefits of a one-year delay could be substantial. The distressed auto industry would not have to spend an estimated $5.9 billion in incremental technology investments (Table 4A.5-6) in model year 2012.

In addition, slower implementation of economy standards would slow the pace at which automakers decrease average vehicle size and weight. Reducing vehicle weight and size is a vintage method of improving fuel economy — but it also negatively affects vehicle safety. NHTSA’s 2002 fuel economy report concluded that regulatory-induced vehicle downsizing contributed to 1,300-2,600 fatalities and 13,000 to 26,000 serious injuries in 1993, a typical year. 

EPA and NHTSA struggle to belittle the size-safety tradeoff in their joint rule. However, they do include a “worst-case” scenario in which the new standards cause an additional 493 deaths in model year 2016 (see p. 144). Slowing the pace of fuel economy regulation would save lives.

Today, Senators Graham, Kerry, and Lieberman were expected to release their cap and trade bill.  However, immigration reform put a damper on that.  However, this is a bill that definitely should be on the radar screen.

When (if) the bill is introduced, there will be lots of fanfare about how oil companies and utility companies support the bill (or at least aren’t opposing it).

However, there’s a reason for this support.  They are being provided all kinds of goodies as discussed in this recent Mother Jones article.

There will be government-backed loans for nuclear power plants, oil companies won’t be subjected to the same cap and trade requirements as others, there will be $10 billion in subsidies for carbon capture technology research, etc.

It doesn’t take much for businesses to use the lawmaking process to benefit themselves at the expense of the public and the economy.

So, when the bill is unveiled, don’t get fooled by the fanfare regarding how many companies support the bill.  If you buy-off industries, then we’d expect those industries to support the bill.

While the environmental extremists and utility and oil companies benefit, the public will get harmed by a massive energy tax that will cut jobs, reduce personal income, and have a disproportionate impact on the poor.

The health care bill was bad enough.  However, a cap and trade bill is far worse.  Energy is an input into every good or service.  That means the government will have its hands on almost every facet of the economy.

This bill should be (in a responsible Congress) dead on arrival–the very idea that we are going to impose a massive energy tax during this recession for no good reason is absurd.  However, we don’t have a responsible Congress.  As a result, this bill could have some serious legs.

Reuters reports that it used freedom of information laws to obtain a copy of text that was stripped from a December 2009 European Union study on biofuels. The hidden portion of the study found that biodiesel fuel made from North American soybeans has an indirect carbon footprint of 339.9 kilograms of CO2 per gigajoule — about four times larger than standard diesel from petroleum.

The suppressed analysis jibes with Fargione et a. (2008) and Searchinger et al. (2009), who found that CO2 emissions from the land use changes associated with biofuel production exceed the emissions avoided by combusting biofuels instead of petroleum-based fuels.

“The EU’s executive European Commission said it had not doctored the report to hide the evidence, but only to allow a deeper analysis before publishing,” Reuters reports. Uh huh. And if the analysts had found that biodiesel has a much smaller footprint than standard diesel, the Commission would have deep-sixed that study too pending a “deeper analysis.” Right!

“Given the divergence of views and the level of complexity of the issue … it was considered better to leave the contentious analysis out of the report,” the Commission said in a statement. Well, when it comes to energy — or health care, or financial industry reform, or almost any public policy issue you can think of — when isn’t there a “divergence of views” and a high “level of complexity”?

EU policymakers don’t want to be troubled by the facts — and they don’t want hoi polloi getting hold of information that calls their agenda into question.

And they wonder why public trust in the ‘climate science community’ is waning!

That is the question posed this week on National Journal’s energy experts’ blog. My answer, available  here, is that “failure” will have multiple benefits:

– The U.S. economy won’t be hit by virtual or outright energy taxes in the midst of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, improving prospects for a recovery.

– Congress will not declare political warfare on coal, continuing America’s access to abundant, affordable base-load power.

– Congress will not adopt carbon tariffs, avoiding an era of trade warfare between the United States and emerging industrial powerhouses such as China and India.

– The U.S. Government will lack a bully pulpit for pressuring poor countries to ban coal-based power, allowing them to escape from energy poverty.