Blog

Oh the Worries of Our Modern Malthusians! In Washington this week, the Anarctica and Arctic Councils met for the first time.  Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, used the occasion to discuss the problems that global warming was “causing” in these areas.  Among the myriad disasters is the possibility that the region’s energy resources will become available and that an all-year passage around the pole might open.  

As I recall my history, European explorers spent centuries searching for a Northwest Passage.  Given the massive increases in global trade, the efficiencies that this would provide could give our flagging global economy a significant boost – and reduce energy use also.  And increasing access to new secure energy reserves (especially given that Norwegian and Alaskan activities have already shown we can extract such resources safely) would do much to address energy security concerns.  But to our Modern Malthusians, these are problems! 

There is a total ban on economic activity, even though continental drift over the eons has meant that Anarctica might well have extensive fossil fuel reserves.  The treaty forbids almost all economic activities but does authorize residency by “scientists.”  This illustrates another bias of the left – “Research good, technology bad!”  In her speech however, Hillary went further calling for tourist restrictions (so much for eco-tourism).  One begins to understand – to protect the planet, we must wall it off from humanity!  

An ambitious goal but one that shouldn’t be ignored.  Malthusians have now captured one continent – only six to go!

“The financial crisis is not the only problem. There’s another worse one, because it has to do not with the means of production and distribution but with our very existence. I’m referring to climate change. Both are here and will be discussed simultaneously,” Castro said in the latest of his commentaries on current events.,” according to the Latin American Herald Tribune.

He’ll fit right in with the altruistic designers and promoters of the Waxman-Markey bill, which is “modeled closely on the recommendations of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP)”  industry lobbying organization.

Only if the costs decline dramatically, a recent Congressional Research Service report suggests, as I discuss here. Currently, the costs of carbon capture and storage (CCS) are too high to justify continuing investment in coal-based power–the source of 50% of U.S. electricity–under increasingly stringent caps or taxes on CO2 emissions.

In addition, the storage component of a CCS system must be very nearly leak proof or it will flunk federal environmental impact assessments. As Cal Tech chemist Nathan Lewis observes, “The collective leak rates of the reservoirs must be significantly lower than 1%, sustained over a century-to-millennium time-scale. Otherwise, after 50 to 100 years of sequestration, the yearly emissions will be comparable to the emission levels that were supposed to be mitigated in the first place.”

Finally, even if economical and leak-proof, CCS must overcome the NIMBY forces who seem bent on blocking any and all energy projects, from wind farms to desert solar concentrator arrays. According to an MIT report (see p. ix), the pipeline network required to transport all the CO2 from U.S. coal power plants to underground storage sites would rival the U.S. oil or natural gas pipeline networks in size. 

So, can CCS keep the lights on in a carbon-constrained future? Only if three conditions are met: costs fall dramatically, the storage sites are virtually leak proof, and NIMBYs get out of the way.

“Climate 350″–for 350 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere–is fast becoming the new mantra of Gorethodox believers in climate doom and coercive energy rationing. Columbia University will host a conference on the topic next month, featuring NASA scientist James Hansen as the keynote speaker.

But as Newsweekreporter Sharon Begley points out, just to limit atmospheric concentrations to 450 ppm, nations would have to build 10,000 new nuclear power plants–one every other day from now until 2050–plus a mind boggling 1 million solar roof top panels per day from now until 2050. Even then, 450 ppm is attainable only if global energy efficiency improves by a whopping 500%, population grows only to 9 billion (instead of 10 billion or 11 billion), and global GDP grows at an anemic (near recession) rate of 1.6% per year.

What would it take to lower CO2 concentrations to 350 ppm? According to Begley’s source, Cal Tech chemist Nathan Lewis, global CO2 emissions would have to drop to zero by 2050.

Absent revolutionary changes in energy production, distribution, conversion, and storage–Nobel-caliber breakthroughs that nobody can plan or predict–lowering CO2 emissions to 350 ppm is impossible without draconian cutbacks in population, economic output, or both. Whether they realize it or not, the Climate 350 Club is asking us to go back to the caves.

For additional discussion, see my post on Masterresource.org.

Well, not overtly, but the Senate voted 89-8 for an amendment to the Fiscal year 2010 budget resolution (S. Con Res. 13), introduced by Sen. John Thune (R-SD), which would prohibit any future greenhouse gas cap-and-trade initiative from increasing gasoline prices and electricity rates for U.S. households and businesses.  

As University of Colorado professor Roger Pielke, Jr. points out, “The entire purpose of cap and trade is in fact to increase the costs of carbon-emitting sources of energy, which dominate US energy consumption. The Thune Amendment thus undercuts the entire purpose of cap and trade.” In other words, it is impossible to vote for the Thune amendment and support cap-and-trade and be consistent, candid, or straight with the American people.

Who voted for the Thune amendment? A whole bunch of cap-and-traders including Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Joe Lieberman (ID-CT), John McCain (R-AZ), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), and John Warner (D-VA).

Boxer tried to square the circle, proposing legislation, adopted 54-43, to compensate consumers for higher energy prices via tax rebates. But rebates after-the-fact are not the same as prohibiting measures that increase energy prices in the first place. Does anyone really believe that if carbon permit auctions under President Obama’s cap-and-trade initiative raise $646 billion or even $1.9 trillion for the Treasury, spendaholics in Congress will not use one dime of the boodle to fund pet projects, “green” jobs, or health-care “reform”?

Pielke, Jr. concludes on a cheery note:

The Thune Amendment effectively kills cap and trade as a mechanism for reducing emissions. I have little doubt that the legislation will go forward, and it likely will pass in some form and do many things. Its just that reducing emissions won’t be among them. Cap and trade is dead, but the charade will go on.

A consumation devoutly to be wished. On the other hand, it ain’t over ’till it’s over. We should not underestimate the capacity of politicians to insist on having their cake and eating it. Again, Boxer pretends to see no contradiction between voting for Thune and supporting Obama’s $646 billion to $1.9 trillion energy tax. The Thune amendment could also be jettisoned or vitiated by House-Senate conferees.

Nonetheless, the Thune amendment shows the path to victory. Cap-and-traders fear public retribution over high electricity and gasoline prices more than they fear the alleged horrors of global warming. Our task is obvious–keep calling cap-and-trade an energy tax, because that is what it is.

During the Great Depression, Herbert Hoover damaged the economy, and impoverished the American people, with costly, artificial attempts to stimulate the economy through increased government spending, financed by heavy taxes like the Revenue Act of 1932.

Obama is now doing the same thing through his proposed $2 trillion cap-and-trade carbon tax. That tax fulfills his prediction in 2008 to the San Francisco Chronicle (which didn’t report it) that “Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” As Obama admitted, that cost would be directly passed “on to consumers” — just the way Herbert Hoover’s regressive excise taxes were in 1932. Although the tax’s supporters claim it will cut greenhouse gas emissions, it may perversely increase them and also result in dirtier air.

The $2 trillion that Obama’s proposed “cap-and-trade” carbon tax on energy use and utility bills is expected to raise is far more than the $646 billion the Administration earlier estimated. That’s at least $3,100 per family per year.

Obama is also emulating Herbert Hoover’s protectionism. Hoover signed the Smoot-Hawley tariff, which helped turn a recession into the Great Depression by triggering a trade war with other countries.

Similarly, the bill incorporating Obama’s carbon tax contains protectionist measures that will likely trigger an economically-destructive trade war. Indeed, Obama already started a trade war through a provision in his $800 billion stimulus package that blocked a measley 97 Mexican truckers from U.S. roads. That minor NAFTA violation “caused Mexico to retaliate with tariffs on 90 goods affecting $2.4 billion in U.S. trade,” destroying 40,000 American jobs. (Even before that, the Congressional Budget Office admitted that Obama’s stimulus package would actually shrink the economy in the long run).

The $2 trillion raised by Obama’s cap-and-trade carbon tax may be dwarfed by the money it siphons from consumers to well-connected corporations that have learned how to game cap-and-trade schemes.

In the Great Depression, President Herbert Hoover raised marginal tax rates to 63%, and went on a deficit spending binge. Similarly, Obama has proposed higher marginal tax rates, which will produce another $1.9 trillion in tax increases.

In spite of its massive size, Obama’s carbon tax won’t begin to pay for all his spending increases, such as a budget that will generate $4.8 trillion in increased deficits, Obama’s trillion-dollar toxic-asset program, and his $800 billion, economy-shrinking “stimulus” package, all of which contradict Obama’s campaign pledge of a “net spending cut.”

Obama’s carbon tax, like the tobacco tax increase he already signed into law, is a violation of his campaign promise not to raise taxes in “any form” on anyone making less than $250,000 per year.

Remember last month when the president and vice president photo-opped the signing of the $787 billion stimulus bill in Denver? Part of the trip was devoted to President Obama’s promotion of “green” energy initiatives, many of which will benefit from the mass subsidization in the new legislation. One project he toured was a solar panel project on top of the Denver Museum of Nature and Science, which the Denver Post says, “The sun generates enough energy on the museum rooftop to power about 30 homes.” Well, investigative reporter Todd Shepherd of Colorado’s Independence Institute tried to verify that and other claims about the project:

…That claim cannot be verified at this time, and in fact, seems to be belied by the scant information provided by the museum and other sources. Laura Holtman, public relations manager for the museum said in an email, “Because the array generates less than 5 percent of the museum’s power, [the purchased energy] is not a particularly large bill.”

The Independence Institute asked the Denver Museum of Science and Nature to provide certain statistical information regarding the now-famous solar array. Specifically, the Institute asked for:

1 ) Two years worth of electric bills prior to the installation of the solar array,
2 ) All electric bills following the completion of the installation.

The Museum denied those requests.

As Shepherd explains, it turns out the solar panels were so expensive ($720,000) that the museum declined to undertake the project for itself. Instead, a private company was able to make it worthwhile to own the project via taxpayer-subsidized “rebates” through Xcel Energy, and via state and federal tax “incentives.”

Given the circumstances it is absurd to believe the claims made about the amount of power generated by the panels. But note the statement: “The sun generates enough energy on the museum rooftop to power about 30 homes.” Any detail beyond that hopeful generality is lost on the uncurious, lazy reporter. Note that the statement isn’t talking about the energy generated from the panels; just how much solar energy is hitting the top of the roof. And enough energy on the rooftop to power 30 homes for how long? Or how long does the sun have to hit the roof to power the homes (and for how long)? How big are the homes? Etc., etc….

And the museum has no business withholding the information that Shepherd is looking for. According to its 2007 annual report, almost a quarter (22.6%) of DMNS’s support was coerced from taxpayers: from the City and County of Denver, and from the Scientific and Cultural Facilities District (which receives 1 percent of a sales and use tax in a seven-county region surrounding the city). I would say that reaches the public interest threshold where you ought to turn over your electric bills, especially when you are trying to get to the bottom of another dubious project that is heavily subsidized by taxes and surcharges.

Bonus observation from the Denver Post story: Obama cheerleading reporter Allison Sherry, again demonstrating she is devoid of any critical thinking capacity, regurgitates his assertion that “the stimulus bill could create 60,000 jobs here and 400,000 jobs nationwide.” Really? Colorado would likely get 15 percent of the stimulus-driven jobs for the whole nation?

Bonus observation II from the article: Blake Jones, who owns the company that installed the solar panels, looks forward to the stimulus funds:

Jones said he called other CEOs of solar companies to evaluate what they found in the stimulus bill. “The consensus is that this bill will immediately benefit companies like ours,” he said.

Jones said green-technology companies have dozens of projects on hold because of the freeze on venture-capital funding. He believes the stimulus package will get that funding flowing again.

More proof that these things are only attractive with a massive influx of the taxpayers’ hard-earned money.