Blog

Yesterday, energy secretary Steven Chu told reporters at a solar energy conference in Washington, D.C.  “it’s wonderful“ that Apple Inc., Exelon, Nike, PG&E, and PNM Resources have quit the U.S. Chamber of Commerce or its board. He also encouraged other companies to leave, according to Reuters.

This crosses the line. The Secretary of Energy is not supposed to use the authority of his taxpayer-funded office to advocate the breakup of the Chamber of Commerce, or of any lawful private association, for that matter.

Chu is of course free to criticize the Chamber’s positions on climate policy. Even then, however, such criticism should be generic, focused on the positions, not on the organization, lest it have a chilling effect.

But when Chu praises companies for leaving the Chamber, he is not only injecting himself into a quarrel that is none of his business; he is taking hostile action against the organization.

Imagine the outcry from congressional Democrats, the liberal media, and the environmental community if Bush energy secretary Samuel Bodman had urged companies to quit U.S. CAP, or if Bush EPA Administrator Steven Johnson told Sierra Club members to cancel their memberships.

Chu has been in office too long to still think of himself as an academic free to spout off on any topic he likes. He is a cabinet secretary, and unless we’re now living in a banana republic, cabinet heads are not authorized to threaten people over policy differences.

Threaten how? DOE does business with Chamber members. DOE therefore has the power to affect the bottom lines of Chamber companies.

Let’s also not put blinders on here. Environmental lobbying groups are waging a campaign of intimidation against the Chamber because it refuses to put the short-term special interest of energy-rationing profiteers ahead of the long-term general interest of business in limited government, economic growth, and affordable energy. Chu’s remarks make him a de-facto partner in this intimidation campaign.

Most importantly, when Chu speaks, he speaks for the Obama administration, which wields vast regulatory and prosecutorial powers over the business community. It is precisely because the executive branch is inherently coercive that we expect cabinet secretaries to avoid even the appearance of trying to suppress political dissent.

Chu should apologize to the Chamber and then do the decent thing: resign.

A few weeks back (and in subsequent op-eds) I introduced the latest student indoctrination effort to fight global warming, via the Alliance for Climate Education, which seeks invitations from high schools to deliver assembly presentations during class time. The group, which has started out targeting six regions of the country (the San Francisco Bay area, Southern California, Houston, Chicago, New England, and Washington, D.C.), presents climate misinformation and lies (To students: “You’ve lived through the ten hottest years ever recorded in history”) so as to recruit teens for the cause of further spreading alarmism.

Last week a report in the student newspaper for the private Loomis Chaffee School, near Hartford, Conn., illustrated that the presentations ACE educators deliver are heavily scripted. For confirmation, you might watch the group’s promotional video trailer, note the script highlights delivered by San Francisco rapper Ambessa Contave, and then catch the reported remarks from ACE’s New England educator Rouwenna Lamm:

• “We all need to lower our emissions and raise our voices.”
• “In 2009, we’ve inherited a world that’s all about living large.”
• “Did you know that the average American teenager uses 20 football fields just to live?”
• “You can’t see that, but what it means is ‘living large’ cranks up the world’s thermostat way too hot.”
• “Climate change is real, it is dangerous and it was be stopped. You didn’t start it, you don’t want it, but you have to fix it.”
• “Don’t discount the power you have as individuals and collectively.”

Most of the bulleted remarks copycat Contave’s recorded points. The outcome at Loomis? After giving classroom lectures on the science of climate change (certainly excluding the lack of upward change during the last decade), and at the end of Lamm’s evening presentation, many students immediately signed online ACE’s “Declaration of Independence from Fossil Fuels.”

Next up: Grade school global warming warning songs to the tune of “We Are the World.”

In today’s ClimateWire (subscription required), reporter Jessica Leber describes a biofuel industry still totally dependent on government handouts and still pleading for more special favors.

First a bit of background.

In December 2007, Congress passed and President Bush signed the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA). Among other things, EISA boosted the existing (2005 Energy Policy Act) Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) from 7.5 billion gallons a year by 2012 to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022. Of those 36 billion gallons, 21 billion gallons must come from “advanced biofuels.”

The RFS is essentially a Soviet-style production quota. Congress, prodded by campaign contributions from the corn lobby, and by presidential candidates jockeying for support in the Iowa Caucuses, decided that central planning of the nation’s motor fuel markets was an idea whose time had come.

To qualify as “advanced” under EISA, a biofuel must (1) be made from plant matter other than corn kernels and (2) achieve a 50% reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions compared to gasoline, based on a “life-cycle” (wells-to-wheels) analysis. EISA also allows 15 billion gallons a year by 2022 to come from plain old corn ethanol, although to qualify as a “renewable fuel,” corn ethanol from newer plants must achieve a 20% reduction in GHG emissions relative to gasoline — again, based on life-cycle analysis.

EISA mandates the sale of 100 million gallons of advanced biofuel in 2009 and 200 million gallons in 2010 (see p. 6 of this presentation). For years, biofuel lobbyists have been telling us that advanced biofuels are “just around the corner.” But, Matt Carr of the Biotechnology Industry Organization estimated last month that in 2010 volumes will, optimistically, reach only 12 million gallons, Leber reports.

In a sop to the corn lobby, the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill would suspend for five years the EISA requirement for life-cycle analysis to determine whether biofuels qualify as “advanced” or even as “renewable.” Several life-cycle analyses indicate that corn ethanol produces more greenhouse gases than the gasoline it replaces, once emissions from land use changes are taken into account (for a summary, see pp. 4-6 of this report).

The Kerry-Boxer cap-and-trade bill does not contain the five-year hold on life-cycle analysis, and the uncertainty as to which biofuels will qualify under future EPA implementing rules ”chills the investment community,” Carr complains. I’d put the point differently: Strong evidence that corn ethanol is not “climate friendly” jeopardizes the political rents that corn growers and ethanol distillers hoped to extract from climate hysteria.

Leber also notes that, “the industry is also concerned about ambiguous language in both the Senate and House versions of the bill that does not clearly exempt the biofuels component of blended petroleum fuels, such as E10 and E85, from an economy-wide carbon cap.”

Did you get that? The corn-ethanol lobby invoked climate doom to sell biofuel mandates to Congress and the public. But now they say the centerpiece of regulatory climate policy — the cap in “cap and trade” — should not apply to biofuels, even though biofuels emit CO2, and even though several life-cycle analyses indicate that corn-ethanol is more carbon-intensive than gasoline. One law for me, another for thee!

Producers of “advanced” ethanol also complain that they must compete for climate-tech loan guarantees against companies developing solar, wind, and compressed natural gas technologies. The outrage! Why should ethanol producers have to share the greenhouse gravy train with anybody else?

This just in: Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Susan Collins (R-ME) today released Biofuels: Potential Effects and Challenges of Required Increases in Production and Use, an August 2009 study by the Government Accountability Office (GAO). One of GAO’s conclusions is that the 45-cent/gallon tax credit that refiners receive for blending ethanol into motor gasoline “may no longer be needed to stimulate conventional corn-ethanol production because the domestic industry has matured, its processing is well understood, and its use capacity is already near the effective RFS limit of 15 billion gallons a year of conventional ethanol.”

The Renewable Fuels Association “panned” the GAO study, Leber reports. Well, what else did you expect? Without the blenders’ credit, a national market for ethanol would not exist. In their PR (if not in their own minds), corn ethanol will always be an infant industry in need of special tax breaks to compete with the big bad oil companies.

What happens if, as seems likely, the industry falls farther and farther behind the EISA ”advanced” biofuel requirements? Here’s my prediction: The Renewable Fuels Association will not lobby to scale back the overall 36-billion RFS; rather, they’ll lobby to raise up the 15 billion gallon ceiling on corn ethanol.

A couple of weeks ago I wrote companion op-eds for the Washington Examiner and San Francisco Examiner about the effort by the Alliance for Climate Education to infiltrate high schools and recruit students to also push their alarmism agenda. The Examiner gave ACE’s Alisha Fowler an opportunity to write a counterpoint op-ed, in which she accused me of inaccurate journalism:

Unfortunately, Paul Chesser’s op-ed last week about ACE misreported many of our central tenets. The science behind climate change drives our work.

She followed the typical Leftist tactic of making an accusation without supporting it with evidence, as I address in my Examiner letter to the editor today:

I usually don’t respond to comments about my opinion pieces, realizing it’s always best to let everyone express their views. However, I do make exceptions in cases where I’ve been accused of journalistic malpractice, as was the case last Monday by the Alliance for Climate Education’s Alisha Fowler. The Oakland, Calif.-based educator alleged that I “misreported” ACE’s “central tenets,” yet failed to identify a single instance of inaccurate journalism on my part.

What could she have meant? Is ACE not funded by a wealthy wind energy entrepreneur for BP (a.k.a. “Big Oil”)? Are students not removed from their classes in order to hear ACE’s recruitment pitch for climate alarmism? Is ACE telling the truth when they inform students that they’ve lived through the 10 hottest years on record? Just what is the misreporting, Ms. Fowler?

Perhaps she could improve her own research about the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, where she’d discover the “consensus” that supports global warming alarmism is drawn from a small group of non-scientist government bureaucrats, rather than the “collection of more than 1,000” scientists she claims. When you accuse someone of shoddy work, you’d better show some evidence.

Updated at 10/1/09 4:47 PM

I’ve just begun reading EPA’s proposed Tailoring Rule to establish a new 25,000 tons per year (TPY) ”major stationary source” applicability threshold for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the Clean Air Act’s Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) pre-construction permitting program and Title V operating permits program. I’ll blog about this again later on, but for now I just want to say, “We told ya so!”

Attorney Peter Glaser, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, CEI and a host of other free market groups warned repeatedly that regulating GHG emissions from new motor vehicles — the immediate policy objective of plaintiffs in the Supreme Court global warming case, Massachusetts v. EPA – would have the following consequences:

1. CO2 would automatically become an air pollutant “subject to regulation” under the PSD and Title V programs.
2. Millions of previously unregulated entities — big box stores, enclosed malls, hotels, apartment complexes, mid-sized office buildings, even commercial kitchens — would be vulnerable to new controls, paperwork, penalties, and litigation.
3. The volume of permit applications would create an administrative quagmire for EPA and state environmental permitting agencies.
4. The new costs, uncertainties, and delays would create an unprecedented roadblock to new construction and economic development, turning the Clean Air Act into a gigantic Anti-Stimulus program.

Predictably, global warming activists, such as Sierra Club climate council David Bookbinder, a plaintiff in Massachusetts v. EPA, derided these concerns as a “bugaboo,” a “red herring,” and a “pure scare tactic” by industry foes of regulatory climate policy. (See segments 1:47 – 1:48 and 2:03 – 2:05 of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s Archived Webcast).

EPA’s July 30, 2008 Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act (ANPR) acknowledged that applying PSD to CO2 might increase the volume of permit applications by an “order of magnitude” (p. 44499), might “overwhelm” the administrative resources of permitting authorities (p. 44507), and might subject sources to new costs, uncertainties, and delays (p. 44502). However, the ANPR considerably understated the risks, Glaser, the Chamber, and CEI argued.

Well, you can now get the lowdown straight from the horse’s mouth.  Here’s what EPA’s Tailoring Rule says:

If PSD and Title V requirements apply at the applicability levels provided under the CAA, state permitting authorities would be paralyzed by permit applications in numbers that are orders of magnitude [not a mere “order of magnitude,” as in the ANPR] greater than their current administrative resources could accomodate [p. 1].

* * *

If PSD and Title V requirements apply at the applicability levels provided under the CAA, many small sources would be burdened by the costs of individualized PSD control technology requirements and permit applications. In addition, state permitting authorities would be paralyzed by enormous numbers of these permit applications; the numbers are orders of magnitude greater than the current inventory of permits and would vastly exceed the current administrative resources of the permitting authorities [pp. 15-16]

* * *

In short, without this tailoring rule, the administrative burdens would be immense, and they would immediately and completely overwhelm the permitting authorities. Without this tailoring rule, permitting authorities would receive approximately 40,000 PSD permit applications each year — currently, they receive approximately 300 — and they would be required to issue Title V permits for approximately some six million sources — currently, their Title V inventory is some 15,000 sources [p. 19].

* * *

Based on our GHG threshold data analyis, we estimate that almost 41,000 new and modified facilities per year would be subject to PSD review, based on the current rate of modifications at major sources, if a GHG major sourcee threshold of 250 TPY CO2e [carbon dioxide equivalent] were applied. Compared to the 280 PSD permits currently issued last year, this would be an increase in permits of more than 140-fold [p. 50].

* * *

Based on these assumptions [permitting agency costs in time and money to process a PSD permit for a commercial or residential GHG source would be only 20% of the time and money required to process a permit for an industrial GHG source], the additional annual permitting burden for permitting authorities, on a national basis, is estimated to be 3.3 million hours at a cost of $257 million to include all GHG emitters above the 250-TPY threshold [pp. 51-52].

* * *

Most significant [of new Title V obligations triggered by GHG regulation of new motor vehicles] are the more than six million sources of GHGs that would become newly subject to Title V requirements because they exceed the 100-TPY threshold for GHG but did not for previously regulated pollutants. Although there are generally not applicable requirements for GHGs that apply to such sources [a gross understatement — although there are generally no Clean Air Act requirements, period, that apply to such sources], these six million sources would be required to submit a Title V permit application within 1 year [pp. 56-57].

* * *

Obviously, this massive influx of permit applications would overwhelm permitting authorities’ administrative resources. Indeed, permitting authorities report that they currently are having difficulty keeping up with their existing permit workloads. The Tite V Operating Permits System database, which tracks permit issuance, confirms that issuance of many permits is already delayed. By increasing the volume of permits by over 400 times, the administrative burden would be unmanageable [p. 58].

* * *

We estimate that for permitting authorities, the average new commercial or residential [Title V] permit would require 43 hours to process, which is 10 percent of the time needed for the average industrial permit . . . We estimate that the total nationwide additional burden for permitting authorities for Title V permits from adding GHG emissions at the 100-TPY threshold would be 340 imllion hours, which would cost over $15 billion [p. 59].

These burdens are “absurd,” EPA argues, because they are “inconsistent” with “congressional intent,” indeed would “undermine congressional purposes” (p. 19). Hence, EPA concludes, it is justified in effectively amending the statute, upping the PSD and Title V applicability thresholds for major sources from 100/250 TPY to 25,000 TPY.

Well, somebody needs to point out the obvious. The looming threat of an economy-chilling administrative quagmire didn’t just happen. The absurdity of agencies spending 340 million hours and $15 billion to process hollow operating permits didn’t suddenly spring forth from the text of Title V. Nothing in the Clean Air Act has changed since it was amended in 1977 and 1990 to turn it into an economic wrecking ball. Congress is still debating cap-and-trade, and never signed off on EPA using the Clean Air Act to control CO2 emissions from stationary sources. No, the absurd results are entirely a product of Mass. v. EPA. So is the necessity for EPA now to amend clear and unambiguous statutory language, violating the separation of powers.

When a court decision leads to absurd results, there are only two possibilities. (1) The absurdity was lurking in the statute all along and the court simply brought it to light; or (2) the court messed up, manufacturing absurdity in an otherwise sane and reasonably coherent law. My comment on EPA’s proposed endangerment finding (especially pp. 28-33) argues the blame lies with the Court, not those who drafted and enacted the Clean Air Act.

“I remember the importance of toilet paper while being shelled a few times, a couple of times while on the throne. I don’t understand why they can’t do re-cycled AND fluffy. Why are they exclusive?”

One 122 mm mortar round can ruin that beautiful experience on the throne.

That’s from an officer I befriended at Camp Corregidor in Ramadi, Iraq, where it rained shells so often we had to wear body armor at all times outside of fortified buildings. He saw my blog “Enviros want to wipe out soft toilet paper!” concerning the greens wanting us to use recycled toilet paper instead of the softer kind from older – but not “old growth” – trees. Older trees are better carbon sinks, meaning better at soaking up CO2.

It’s all about fiber length. Longer fibers mean fewer knots and it’s those knots you feel, whether in TP or in your bedsheets or in clothes – albeit not in Army uniforms, which are part polyester anyway.

That’s why Egyptian cotton is the best, because it has the longest fibers. Recycled paper products inherently have fiber of short length, hence lots of knots. Not so important when you’re writing on it, but rather more so when wiping with it and – although I personally haven’t had the experience – doing so with 122 mm rounds dropping around your throne.

Today’s Greenwire (subscription required) reports that Nike, the sports shoe king, is resigning its position on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Board of Directors. Nike supports cap-and-trade legislation, a national renewable portfolio standard, a moratorium on new coal power plants lacking carbon capture and storage, and EPA regulation of CO2 under the Clean Air Act. The Chamber opposes all of the foregoing.

Although the Greenwire story is not slanted, neither is it particularly informative. The reporter makes no effort to ascertain what bottom line interest might account for Nike’s decision to quit the Chamber, or for the company’s decision to join the Business for Innovative Climate & Energy Policy (BICEP) coalition, a project of Ceres, the Gorethodox investor network.

The vast majority of Nike’s production facilities are in China and other Asian developing countries such as Thailand, Indonesia, and Vietnam. (I can’t find exact numbers — Nike appears to be coy about the details.) Nike factories in developing Asia would not be subject to CO2 controls from either Waxman-Markey or EPA regulation under the Clean Air Act.

What’s more, if the G-77 Plus China hang tough at the Copenhagen climate conference, and the successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol continues to exempt developing countries from legally binding emission limits, then the comparative advantage (lower energy costs) those countries already enjoy under Kyoto will increase, making Nike factories even more profitable to invest in.

Here’s what an honest Nike press release might say: 

Nike believes U.S. policymakers should use law, regulation, and the Copenhagen treaty to hobble domestic firms in favor of the Asian economies where our facilities are located. In contrast, the U.S. Chamber opposes policies that would offshore more U.S. jobs and investment to China and developing Asia. A truly carbon-constrained world would destroy jobs and growth in Asia, too. However, that’s years away, and Nike cares only about its short-term bottom line. Therefore, we are pulling out of the Chamber. 

Instead, Nike tut-tutted about the need for “urgent action” on climate change. When will the sanctimony end?