Politics

Obama Administration take note: Quebec decides to develop its natural resources

by Myron Ebell on May 10, 2011

in Blog, Features, Politics

Post image for Obama Administration take note: Quebec decides to develop its natural resources

Quebec, long an economic basket case kept afloat by Canada’s federal government, has decided to open up its northern interior to resource development.  Quebec Premier Jean Charest announced on Monday an ambitious 25-year “Plan Nord” to build highways, airports, and other infrastructure so that the area can be developed.

According to Montreal’s Gazette, “Investments in energy development, mining, forestry, transportation, and tourism in the 1.2-million-square-kilometre region – twice the size of France – will create 20,000 jobs a year, generating $162 billion in growth and tax revenues of $14 billion.”   Large parts of northern Quebec are heavily forested, and there are major deposits of iron, nickel, gold, platinum, cobalt, zinc, vanadium, and rare earths.

The Obama Administration should follow Quebec’s good example.  The Department of the Interior and the U. S. Forest Service (an agency of the U. S. Department of Agriculture) control nearly 30% of the land in the United States, most of it in the West and Alaska, plus the Outer Continental Shelf.  Federal lands and offshore areas contain colossal reserves of energy and minerals plus the most productive forests in the world.  But the Obama Administration is locking up more and more federal lands and offshore areas in order to prevent oil and gas production, hardrock mining, and timber production.  And they’re trying to block coal mining in Appalachia by inventing new pollutants to be regulated.

[click to continue…]

The T. Boone Pickens Earmark Bill

by Myron Ebell on May 5, 2011

in Blog, Features, Politics

Post image for The T. Boone Pickens Earmark Bill

Republicans in the House of Representatives are flocking to support a bill to extend and create a number of taxpayer-funded subsidies for manufacturers and buyers of vehicles powered by natural gas.   Nearly eighty House Republicans (and a hundred Democrats) have signed up as sponsors of H. R. 1380, the New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions Act (or NAT GAS Act).  Just call it the T. Boone Pickens Earmark Bill.

Many conservative Republicans in the House, particularly a number of new Members with Tea Party connections, have sworn that the fiscal and economic crisis confronting America requires a radical change in federal policies.  Out-of-control spending must be stopped; spending earmarks must be abolished; crony capitalists on the prowl for corporate welfare must be sent packing; subsidies for special interests must be abolished; government must stop interfering in the economy and let free markets work.

That big talk doesn’t seem to apply when the spending is being earmarked for a crony capitalist who is one of the biggest contributors to Republican candidates in history–billionaire T. Boone Pickens.  Apparently, some subsidies are good if they benefit the right special interests.  And government interference in the economy is wonderful if it is done in the name of reducing oil imports.

H. R. 1380 would extend the tax credit of 50 cents per gallon of liquid natural gas (or its equivalent of compressed natural gas) when used for fueling vehicles and provide purchasers of natural gas vehicles with credits ranging from $7,500 to $64,000.  The lower end is for passenger cars and the upper end for big trucks.  There are also credits for natural gas vehicle manufacturers and for installing natural gas fueling stations.

[click to continue…]

Canadian Election Results: No Cap-and-Trade, No Carbon Tax

by Myron Ebell on May 3, 2011

in Blog, Features, Politics

Post image for Canadian Election Results: No Cap-and-Trade, No Carbon Tax

The stunning victory by Stephen Harper’s Conservatives in Canada’s election means the death of cap-and-trade or a carbon tax in Canada.  The Conservative Party’s platform firmly opposed both cap-and-trade and carbon taxes. The Liberal Party, which was annihilated in the election, equally strongly supported imposing a cap-and-trade scheme to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Conservatives won  a clear majority of 167 seats in the 308-member federal Parliament.  They had formed a minority government since 2007.  For the first time in Canadian history, the Liberal Party dropped to third place with 34 seats.  The hard left New Democratic Party (NDP) wiped out the Bloc Quebecois in Quebec and will become the official opposition with 102 seats.  The NDP and the Bloc Quebecois also support cap-and-trade.  The Green Party won its first seat in Parliament.

This is another clear sign that public support for cap-and-trade and other energy-rationing policies is waning.  Cap-and-trade has been dead in the United States since the Waxman-Markey bill narrowly passed the House of Representatives on June 26, 2009.  And in Australia, the Labour Party government is in deep trouble as a result of proposing a carbon tax.  The global warming fad appears to be fading fast.

EPA Shuts Down Drilling in Alaska

by Brian McGraw on April 25, 2011

in Blog, Features, Politics

Post image for EPA Shuts Down Drilling in Alaska

Shell announced today, for now, it must end a project to drill for oil off the coast of Northern Alaska, because of a decision made by an EPA appeals board to deny permits to acknowledge that Shell will meet air quality requirements. This is not part of ANWR.

Companies that drill for oil must go through extensive permitting processes and invest billions of dollars as payments for leasing the land, exploring for possible oil fields, equipment, etc. This is all done with the understanding that assuming they follow the letter of the law, there is a chance that this investment won’t be flushed down the toilet at the end of the tunnel. It appears that in this case Shell has followed procedure and that emissions will be below any standards required by the EPA:

The EPA’s appeals board ruled that Shell had not taken into consideration emissions from an ice-breaking vessel when calculating overall greenhouse gas emissions from the project. Environmental groups were thrilled by the ruling.

“What the modeling showed was in communities like Kaktovik, Shell’s drilling would increase air pollution levels close to air quality standards,” said Eric Grafe, Earthjustice’s lead attorney on the case. Earthjustice was joined by Center for Biological Diversity and the Alaska Wilderness League in challenging the air permits.

Talk about moving the goalposts. They must have been really desperate to cancel this project given that this was the best straight-faced excuse they could muster. Not only do you have to be below the legally required emission limits but you must also not even be “close” to the limits, as defined by unelected officials, one of whom is a former attorney for the Environmental Defense Fund.

Events like this are a prime example of why many in Congress want to strip authority from the EPA. Shell had reportedly invested over $4 billion in this project. When companies make investment decisions, consideration is given to whether or not bureaucrats can make arbitrary decisions to shut the project down halfway through a multi-year process. There are many other countries with natural resource reserves who do not subject economic activity to such unpredictable insanity, and in the eye of a corporation, after an event like this these locations begin to look more preferable to dealing with the United States.

 

 

 

The IPCC and Conflicts of Interest

by Brian McGraw on April 19, 2011

in Blog, Features, Politics

Post image for The IPCC and Conflicts of Interest

Via Roger Pielke Jr.

The IPCC has released documents to address policy changes related to concerns over conflicts of interest that may exist for authors of IPCC reports (summary here). They refer to conflicts of interest as mainly financial in nature, though allow for the possibility of significant non-financial COI’s to be considered as well.

They also have an interesting discussion on the difference between a conflict of interest and bias, noting that bias is mostly unavoidable and attempts will be made to balance perspectives:

Conflict of interest policies in scientific assessment bodies typically make a distinction between “conflict of interest” and “bias,” which refers to a point of view or perspective that is strongly held regarding a particular issue or set of issues. In the case of author and review teams, bias can and should be managed through the selection of a balance of perspectives. For example, it is expected that IPCC author teams will include individuals with different perspectives and affiliations.

Unfortunately, as Roger points out, there a number of problems that remain to be addressed. The submissions rely entirely on individual authors to disclose potential COI’s, and many could go unreported. The most glaring problem though is that the committee will work in secret on these issues and will disclose none of this information to the public.

Given the extent to which there have been problems involving IPCC authors, a tilt towards further transparency of these disclosures or deliberations (while respecting an individual’s financial privacy) seems like a good idea. Do they expect people to be satisfied with “trust us, we looked into this” given past issues?

EPA’s Regulatory Burden

by Iain Murray on April 18, 2011

in Blog, Politics

Post image for EPA’s Regulatory Burden

Last week I received a message from someone knowledgeable about both the EPA and the Hill. It speaks for itself:

Shimkus is holding a hearing now on the coal ash rule, which is live on the committee web site.  The assistant administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response or someone from EPA just said that EPA always weighed costs and benefits before implementing a regulation and would never implement a regulation when the costs outweighed the benefits.  Whitfield asked him what proposed regulations had been killed when they found that the costs did outweigh the benefits.  The EPA guy said that he couldn’t think of any off the top of his head so would have to get back to him.  Whitfield asked him to provide one example, so that they could see the difference between a regulation that met the cost-benefit test and one that didn’t.  Don’t hold your breath.

EPA is one of the leading agencies burdening us with more and more regulation every year. For instance, at the moment it has these in the pipeline:

  • Rulemaking to address greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles
  • Clean air visibility, mercury, and ozone implementation rules
  • Review of National Ambient Air Quality Standards for lead, ozone, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, and nitrogen dioxide
  • Rulemakings regarding lead-based paint• National drinking water regulations covering groundwater and surface water
  • National emission standards for hazardous air pollutants from plywood and composite wood products, certain reciprocating internal combustion engines, and auto paints
  • Renewable fuels standard program
  • Standards for cooling water intake structures
  • Combined rulemaking for industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers and process heaters
  • Standards for management of electric power producer coal-combustion wastes
  • Control of emissions from nonroad spark ignition engines, new locomotives, and new marine diesel engines

That’s one of the astonishing facts contained in my CEI colleague Wayne Crews’ annual review of the regulatory state, Ten Thousand Commandments, which is released today. I have a more general review of what it contains over National Review Online.

House Passes Energy Tax Prevention Act, 255-172

by Myron Ebell on April 7, 2011

in Blog, Features, Politics

Post image for House Passes Energy Tax Prevention Act, 255-172

The House of Representatives this afternoon passed H. R. 910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act, by a vote of 255 to 172.  Nineteen Democrats voted Yes.  No Republicans voted No.  This is a remarkable turnaround from the last Congress when on 26th June 2009 the House voted 219 to 212 to pass the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill.

The Energy Tax Prevention Act, sponsored by Rep. Fred. Upton (R-Mich.), the Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, would prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from using the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and thereby put a potentially huge indirect tax on American consumers and businesses.   Coal, oil, and natural gas produce carbon dioxide, the principal greenhouse gas, when burned.  Those three fuels provide over 80% of the energy used in America.  Thus regulating carbon dioxide emissions essentially puts the EPA in charge of running the U. S. economy.

This is just the first step in stopping the Obama Administration’s attempt to raise energy prices .  The House bill now heads to the Senate, where yesterday an attempt to add the Energy Tax Prevention Act (introduced in the Senate as S. 482 by Senator James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma) as an amendment to another bill was defeated on a 50-50 vote.  Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s amendment would have required 60 votes to be attached to S. 493.  Four Democrats joined 46 Republicans in voting for the amendment–Senators Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, and Mark Pryor of Arkansas.  Senator Susan Collins of Maine was the only Republican to vote No.

The strong House vote in favor of the Energy Tax Prevention Act should build new momentum to pass it in the Senate later this year.  Of course, the White House has already issued a veto threat, which shows that President Obama is not interested in creating new jobs and restoring prosperity to America.  Congress has now rejected cap-and-tax resoundingly, but the President still hopes to achieve through backdoor regulation his goals of skyrocketing electric rates and gasoline prices at the $10 a gallon European level.

Everything You Need To Know about the Energy Tax Prevention Act

by Myron Ebell on April 4, 2011

in Blog, Features, Politics

Post image for Everything You Need To Know about the Energy Tax Prevention Act

The House of Representatives is scheduled to debate and pass H. R. 910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act, on Wednesday.  The Senate could also vote this week on an amendment offered by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell that is identical to the Senate version of the Energy Tax Prevention Act, S. 482.  H. R. 910 was introduced by the Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Fred Upton.  S. 482 was introduced by Senator James M. Inhofe, Ranking Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee.  Here are talking points I prepared for Freedom Action on the legislation.

  1. This is a debate about who has authority to decide our nation’s regulatory policies—Congress or autonomous executive agencies.  The first sentence of the first article of the Constitution should be determinative.
  2. H. R. 910 / S. 482 is not about what Members think about climate science.  It is about whether they think that using the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions is the proper policy.
  3. Congress never intended for the Clean Air Act to be used to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and in fact explicitly rejected an attempt in the debate over the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 to add such language to the Act.  H. R. 910 / S. 482 pre-empts regulation until Congress authorizes it.
  4. Cap-and-trade legislation failed in the 111th Congress, yet the Environmental Protection Agency is now trying to achieve the same result through a regulatory end-run around Congress.
  5. H. R. 910 / S. 482 does not in any way restrict or change the Clean Air Act’s regulation of air pollution.  It instead restores the Act to achieve Congress’s original intent.
  6. The United States derives over 80% of its total energy from the three fossil fuels now being regulated by the Clean Air Act on the basis of EPA’s Endangerment Finding.  The Obama Administration has in effect decided that the EPA knows how to run the U. S. economy.
  7. Regulating greenhouse gas emissions is an indirect tax on energy.  By raising energy prices, it will make consumers poorer and manufacturing and transportation more expensive, thereby destroying jobs; and it will likely result in perpetual economic stagnation.  A 2010 study published by Harvard University’s Belfer Center concluded that meeting President Obama’s targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would require a gasoline price of $7-9 a gallon.  President Obama said in 2008 that under his plan, “…electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”
  8. EPA claims that it will implement its regulations in a reasonable way that minimizes costs.  The Tailoring Rule (which overturns explicit language in the Clean Air Act) is offered as evidence of EPA’s reasonableness.  However, EPA cannot determine the outcome of the many lawsuits that have been filed by environmental pressure groups to require faster and deeper emissions reductions.
  9. The Clean Air Act is a complicated set of interlocking regulatory mechanisms.  The logical outcome is that the courts will require EPA to set a National Ambient Air Quality Standard.  The entire world will then be out of attainment for carbon dioxide levels.  A NAAQS gives EPA almost unlimited power to deny permits for new and operating facilities in non-attainment areas.
  10. H. R. 910 / S. 482 pre-empts the major vehicle for regulating greenhouse gas emissions, the Clean Air Act.  However, there are others: Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Clean Water Act, common law nuisance lawsuits, etc.  Congress should block these other routes to unauthorized regulation through amendments to H. R. 910 or through future legislation.

This Week in the Congress

by Myron Ebell on April 2, 2011

in Blog, Features, Politics

Post image for This Week in the Congress

House Ready To Pass Upton Bill Next Week

The House has scheduled H. R. 910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act, for floor debate and passage on Wednesday, 6th April.  This could still slip given the wrangling that is going on between the House and the Senate over the Continuing  Resolution to fund the federal government for the rest of FY 2011 after the current CR runs out on 8th April.

Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton’s (R-Mich.) bill will pass easily with over 250 votes.  That most likely includes all 241 Republicans and 12 to 20 Democrats.

The Rules Committee has not yet met to decide which amendments will be in order.  Conservative Republicans in the Republican Study Committee are considering offering several amendments to strengthen the bill.

H. R. 910 as marked up by the Energy and Commerce Committee prohibits the EPA from using the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, but does not prohibit the Administration from using other existing statutes to regulate emissions.  Nor does it ban common law nuisance lawsuits against emitters of greenhouse gases, such as power plants, manufacturers, railroads, airlines, and cement producers.

Thus one obvious amendment would be to ban common law nuisance suits.  The Supreme Court is currently considering such a case.  It may find that such suits may proceed, but even if it does not it could do so for the wrong reason—namely, that the EPA is regulating emissions and has thereby pre-empted common law.

Democrats led by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Beverly Hills) will undoubtedly offer some of the same silly, irrelevant grandstanding amendments that they offered in committee.  Waxman was reported this week as expressing confidence that the bill has no chance in the Senate.

That was certainly true of his Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill in the last Congress.  One significant difference is that Waxman-Markey barely passed the House, 219-212.  The Upton-Whitfield bill will pass by a much wider margin.

Moreover, cap-and-trade was swimming against strong public opposition, while blocking EPA’s attempt to achieve cap-and-trade through the regulatory backdoor is swimming with public opinion.  That’s why, for example, Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) is still undecided about voting for the McConnell amendment (which is identical to the Senate version of H. R. 910) in the Senate.  She doesn’t want to vote for it, but she’d like to be re-elected in 2012.

Will the Senate Ever Vote on the McConnell Amendment?

The Senate spent another week without voting on Senator Mitch McConnell’s (R-Ky.) amendment to block EPA from using the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions or either of the two Democratic alternatives.  It is quite possible that there will be votes next week.  It is also quite possible that Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will work out a deal with McConnell to dispose of many of the amendments to the underlying bill without votes and proceed to passage of the Small Business Innovation Research Re-Authorization Act.  Or Reid may keep stalling.

McConnell originally introduced his amendment (#183 if you’re keeping track) to S. 493 on 15th March.  It is identical to Senator James M. Inhofe’s (R-Okla.) Energy Tax Prevention Act, S. 482, which is identical to the House bill of the same name, H. R. 910.

Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) introduced an amendment to try to provide cover for fellow Democrats and thereby siphon support from McConnell’s amendment.  Rockefeller would delay EPA regulations for two years.

[click to continue…]

Obama Decries Gimmicks and Slogans with “Win the Future” in Background

by Brian McGraw on March 30, 2011

in Blog, Features, Politics

Post image for Obama Decries Gimmicks and Slogans with “Win the Future” in Background

Let’s acknowledge the irony here. From a copy of Obama’s prepared remarks today at Georgetown University discussing his administration’s energy plan:

 

But here’s the thing – we’ve been down this road before.  Remember, it was just three years ago that gas prices topped $4 a gallon.  Working folks haven’t forgotten that.  It hit a lot of people pretty hard.  But it was also the height of political season, so you had a lot of slogans and gimmicks and outraged politicians waving three-point-plans for two-dollar gas – when none of it would really do anything to solve the problem.  Imagine that in Washington.

The truth is, of course, was that all these gimmicks didn’t make a bit of difference.  When gas prices finally fell, it was mostly because the global recession led to less demand for oil.  Now that the economy is recovering, demand is back up.  Add the turmoil in the Middle East, and it’s not surprising oil prices are higher.  And every time the price of a barrel of oil on the world market rises by $10, a gallon of gas goes up by about 25 cents.

President Obama is decrying gimmicks and slogans (as he should be), noting their inability to achieve anything, with his newest slogan “Win the Future” in the background.

“WTF” indeed.

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →