EU Climate Plan Further Disintegrates

by William Yeatman on October 8, 2008

The European Union’s promise to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions 20% by 2020 looks doubtful as member countries increasingly dilute their climate strategies to allay economic concerns.

Half the 2020 emissions reductions are supposed to come from the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), a continent-wide cap-and-trade scheme that would cover industrial users and suppliers of energy. The ETS occurs over three phases, but all the significant emissions cuts have been postponed until Phase Three, which starts in 2012. Yet phase three is already in dire straits, four years before it is set to begin. Two weeks ago, Germany, the EU’s largest economy, indicated that it will opt-out of phase 3 of the ETS, by granting heavy industry free carbon permits after 2013. In defending the policy, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that she “could not support the destruction of German jobs through an ill-advised climate policy”.

In calling for industrial exemptions, Germany has been joined by Poland, which gets 95% of its electricity from coal. Hungary, the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic have also expressed reservations about phase three of the ETS.

A major portion of the 2020 target would also derive from stringent fuel efficiency standards applied to all EU countries. This week, however, France proposed an auto emissions plan that both postpones and weakens the existing regulations. The French plan was hashed out with Germany over the summer, and it reflects the concerns of German’s powerful automaker lobby.

On Energy, They Both Stink

by William Yeatman on October 8, 2008

Last night’s Presidential debate confirmed what had become apparent when the vice presidential candidates locked horns last week: Both campaigns have horrible energy ideas.

For starters, both Senator John McCain and Senator Barak Obama contributed to the irrational hatred of “big oil.” McCain even said that he voted twenty times against renewable energy giveaways (which is a great idea, because renewables are a waste of taxpayer money; See next paragraph) only because they also included favorable treatment for “big oil.” McCain had it half right—all government handouts to business are bad ideas, not just those to “big oil.”

For his part, Senator Barack Obama said that he would create 5 million jobs with a green jobs program. That’s simply not true; government cannot create jobs out of the blue. Instead they come from other sectors, and the transition costs involved in the switch means a loss in economic productivity. Think of it this way: For every green job “created” by government, a greater number of jobs are lost in businesses that supply or use large amounts of conventional energy.

Moreover, both candidates advocate expensive energy rationing policies to cure climate change.

When it comes to energy, there is in no choice for the American voter in the 2008 presidential election.

 

Energy Department Warns of Higher Energy Bills

by William Yeatman on October 8, 2008

in Blog

Heating U.S. homes with oil this winter will cost a painful $450 more than a year ago, another slap to families already reeling from high gasoline and food costs and fearful of losing their heat because of unpaid bills.

Yes, Even Sanford

by Paul Chesser, Heartland Institute Correspondent on October 7, 2008

Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

You've got to wonder if there's any room for climate sanity left in governance and politics if a man recognized as one of the most conservative governors in America has bought into global warming alarmism. That's what has happened with Gov. Mark Sanford in South Carolina, who last year created the Climate, Energy, and Commerce Advisory Committee to gin up some plans (extracted from the ideas of the Center for Climate Strategies) to cut down on carbon emissions in the state. You might think that Sanford did so as a political nod to the environmentalists in his state, but his executive order (PDF) that created CECAC reflected a passionate tone:

For the last twenty years of my life, I have seen the ever-so-gradual effects of rising ocean levels at our farm in Beaufort County. In some cases, it's been watching pine trees die in that fragile zone between uplands and salt marsh; in other cases it's meant finding roots in areas that would never grow a tree, given the current salt water levels. While I understand very clearly the debate on whether or not these events come as a result of man's activity — or just the effects of nature taking its course – I've had other personal experiences that strongly suggest to me that man is having an impact on the environment. The last time I was in Beijing on a trade trip, we happened to be there on a bad smog day. When I went outside I could see no more than a quarter of a mile and my eyes watered.

Man is quite clearly having an impact in that part of the world, and while it's been my longtime belief as a conservative that I should exercise as many rights and freedoms as possible, those rights and freedoms end when they begin to infringe upon the rights of others.

Fast-forward to a couple of weeks ago when CECAC released its final report, which included 51 policy recommendations to reduce greenhouse gases in South Carolina. Here's what Sanford had to say:

“Some of these recommendations will make a whole lot of sense for South Carolina and others won’t. But we believe this report is an excellent place to begin the conversation and debate – and it is our sincere hope that many of these findings will be implemented in South Carolina.”

The governor's press release added that with the CECAC process he hoped South Carolina "could begin to act on those issues on its own, before being saddled with costly future mandates from Washington, D.C." — as if any state could avoid that burden. As for CCS/CECAC's assertions about its final recommendations, they claim to have done an economic analysis of 33 of its 51 proposals and found that if implemented they would cost approximately $1.6 billion by the year 2020. This is a big change from the kinds of economic claims CCS used to make with commissions in other states, when they would boast that their ideas would produce net gains in state economies (billions of dollars)  and net increases in jobs (hundreds of thousands). They don't do that so much any more. As for the other 18 recommendations they don't quantify, well, I guess they don't want to make it appear the state will be that bad off because of carbon mitigation measures.

Still, it appears that even those numbers in the Palmetto State are short in their estimations, and thank God for the South Carolina Policy Council and the Beacon Hill Institute for bringing some reality to the discussion. The upshot:

Economic analysis of the Climate, Energy and Commerce Advisory Committee (CECAC) report would cost taxpayers billions of dollars while offering a negligible environmental benefit, according to the Policy Council study performed by economists at the Beacon Hill Institute. The Center for Climate Strategies, authors of the CECAC report, propose tax increases and heavier regulations on businesses.

Findings from the study:

-CECAC recommendations would cost South Carolina taxpayers $11.9 billion between 2008 and 2020.
-In 2009 the recommendations would cost the state 13,542 jobs.
-In 2009 private investment would drop by $204 million
-In 2009 the average South Carolina family would incur a direct cost of $1,836.
-Projected global emissions for 2025 would be reduced just 0.012 percent.

And Gov. Sanford thinks this "is an excellent place to begin the conversation and debate?"

Joseph Romm Should Blame Democrats, Too, Because Opposition to Climate Law Is Bipartisan

by William Yeatman on October 7, 2008

Over at Climate Progress, Joseph Romm is writing a series of blogs about whether it is politically feasible for the world to lower its greenhouse gas emissions to 450 parts per million greenhouse gas equivalent, which climate modelers claim is necessary if we are to avoid climate change.

Romm says that the answer to that question is “no,” and in the 6th post of the series, he cites conservative opposition to climate legislation in Congress as a major reason that the climate will change. 

But when the Climate Security Act, the first major cap-and-trade climate change legislation, came before the Senate last summer, 10 Democratic senators wrote an open letter declaring they would oppose it. That's 20 percent of the Senate Democratic caucus.

Rather than partisan politics, the act failed because a bipartisan group of senators refused to pass a bill that would have reduced greenhouse-gas emissions by increasing the price of energy.

Poland Leads Fight To Derail EU Climate Policy

by William Yeatman on October 7, 2008

in Blog

The E.U. created the world’s largest emissions trading market in 2005 to force heavy industries to cap their pollution levels. Next on the E.U. agenda: switching to 20 percent renewable energy and cutting greenhouse gases by 20 percent by the end of the next decade.

Grim Prospects for Climate Pact, China Warns

by William Yeatman on October 7, 2008

in Blog

Negotiations seeking a global pact to tackle global warming are troubled and could end in disastrous failure, China's top climate change envoy warned on Monday, saying rich countries are failing to deliver on promises.

Norway’s Emissions Keep Pace with U. S. Despite Carbon Tax

by William Yeatman on October 7, 2008

According to Leila Abboud of the Wall Street Journal, greenhouse gas emissions have increased 15 % in Norway since the country enacted the world’s first carbon tax twenty years ago. That’s slightly less than the increase in the United States over the same period.

A Bright Future for Some

by William Yeatman on October 7, 2008

in Blog, videos

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpWScO4-OH8 285 234]

Where’s the Warming?

by William Yeatman on October 7, 2008

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRXd4KLDxlM 285 234]

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →