Institutional Environmentalism: Less about Hugging Trees, More about Bringing America to Her Knees

by Marita Noon on April 24, 2012

in Blog, Features

Post image for Institutional Environmentalism: Less about Hugging Trees, More about Bringing America to Her Knees

Despite his speechmaking touting an “all of the above” energy strategy, President Obama’s reelection could depend his willingness to stand in the way of developing America’s resources.

Back in November, at the time of the original Keystone XL pipeline decision, environmental groups threatened to pull their backing for Obama if he approved the pipeline. Michael Brune, executive director of America’s largest environmental group, the Sierra Club, is on record as saying that the President’s decision on Keystone would have “a very big impact” on how they funnel their resources—with the obvious implication being that they would not support the President if he didn’t do their bidding.

Other environmental groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Environmental Defense Fund took a different tack but with the same goal. A press release from the Rainforest Action Network promised the President that if he denied Keystone, he would see a “surge of enthusiasm from the green base that supported you so strongly in the last election.”

Environmental groups clearly understand they have the ability to influence the President’s decisions based on their claims to support—or not support—his bid for a second term. So far, they must be pleased with his administration’s efforts. On Wednesday, April 18, leading environmental groups came out with their official endorsement of President Obama—“the earliest” the groups “have ever endorsed in a presidential election cycle.” According to The Hill, “The groups are planning a mix of advertising and on-the-ground work on Obama’s behalf.” However, Glenn Hurowitz, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, thinks the groups should have waited longer before endorsing the President. He believes the early endorsement removes the “greens’ leverage.”

Most pundits agree that the 2012 presidential election will be a hard fought, close race. In order to win, President Obama needs the four million votes from “greens” the groups represent—and they do not want increased domestic resource extraction.  According to BusinessWeek, funding from environmental groups is currently less than 50% of what it was through the same period in the 2008 campaign—one of the reasons cited: “renewing offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.”

Though receiving little press, the Obama administration is working hard to convince the “greens” that he is one of them.

The NRDC (one of the groups promising support if Obama does the right thing) has launched a major fundraising effort—aided by the actor Robert Redford, to block a proposed mine that would provide America with access to one of the largest known deposits of copper in the world. Copper is essential for electric transmission and America’s industrial future—and highly sought after by developing economies such as China. The land—already designated for mineral exploration and development—also contains gold, silver and molybdenum. Despite the fact that the Native Alaskans living near the proposed Pebble Mine site want the infrastructure and jobs the mine would provide, rich sport-fishermen and out of state environmental groups (NRDC is based in New York City) are claiming to “pressure the Obama administration to reject any permits that could allow Pebble Mine to move forward. And if necessary, we will challenge this disastrous project in federal court.” The fund raising letter states: “Only NRDC combines grassroots power with the legal clout of more than 400 attorneys.”

[click to continue…]

White House Press Secretary Makes Bizarre, Jingoistic Comments about Keystone XL

by Myron Ebell on April 21, 2012

in Blog, Features

Post image for White House Press Secretary Makes Bizarre, Jingoistic Comments about Keystone XL

The House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly this week for a bill, H. R. 4348, to extend the highway bill for another ninety days after the current extension expires at the end of June.  The final vote was 293 to 127, with 69 Democrats voting for passage.  The extension includes three energy and environmental riders, including Rep. Lee Terry’s (R-Neb.) provision to require permitting the Keystone XL pipeline.  Also included are Rep. David McKinley’s (R-WV) amendment to prevent EPA from regulating coal ash as a hazardous waste and Rep. Reid Ribble’s (R-Wisc.) amendment that would expedite environmental reviews of highway construction projects.

The House bill will now be conferenced with the highway bill passed earlier by the Senate.  White House press secretary Jay Carney made some extraordinary statements about the Keystone provision on Friday. According to the Hill, Carney said that permitting the 1700-mile pipeline from Alberta’s oil sands to refineries on the Gulf coast would be “preemptively sacrificing American sovereignty” and that it would be “a foreign pipeline built by a foreign company emanating from foreign territory to cross U. S. borders.”

Carney also said that Rep. Terry’s amendment had been added to the highway bill in a “highly politicized, highly partisan way.” That is odd, considering that increasing numbers of Democrats in the House support overriding President Obama’s opposition to permitting the pipeline.  One supporter is Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), the Democratic Whip.  The Senate narrowly defeated an amendment to permit the pipeline last month on a 56 to 42 vote (with 60 required for passage).  Eleven Democrats voted for the amendment.  That’s about as bi-partisan as the Senate gets these days.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) reacted to the House vote by saying that the Senate had clearly rejected permitting the Keystone pipeline and would not agree to the House language in conference committee.  But the New York Times noticed in a news article that Democratic support for President Obama’s obstructionism was clearly crumbling in the face of public support for the pipeline and the November elections.

Everything in Transportation Bills Is Bad Except for the Energy Parts, Which Are Great [updated: I Was Wrong, There’s also an Excellent Environmental Provision in the House Bill**]

by William Yeatman on April 19, 2012

in Blog

By a 293-127 vote, the House of Representatives yesterday adopted a short-term extension of the federal highway bill. Fourteen Republicans voted against it, while sixty-nine Democrats voted for passage. The original highway bill, known as the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, was enacted in 2005. Yesterday’s action was the 10th extension passed by the House since the original SAFETEA-LU surface transportation law expired in 2009.

The House’s bill would extend highway funding for 90 days. In March, the Senate passed a bill that would extend it for 2 years. Next, House and Senate leaders from both parties will convene a conference committee, through which they’ll try to hammer out compromise language acceptable to both Congressional chambers.

Alas, it is extremely likely that little good will come of the Conference, at least with regards to transportation policy. The House bill only perpetuates a broken system. For more on the ills of the status quo, read these articles by my colleague Marcus Scribner. To be fair to the House, the Senate bill is much more terrible. It includes all sorts of special favors and gives-aways to special interests. Thus, the negotiating positions in the Congressional Conference are bad and worse!

The only language in either chamber’s bill that warrants ultimate passage is that pertaining to energy policy, and it comes exclusively from the version approved yesterday by the House. Indeed, these energy policy provisions are excellent.

For starters, the legislation included language that would fast-track the Keystone XL Pipeline, the $7 billion, shovel-ready project to deliver up to 830,000 barrels a day of tar sands oil from Canada to U.S. Gulf Coast refineries. Specifically, the legislation would give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission thirty days to approve the project. This provision, if enacted, would effectively override the President’s self-serving decision* to veto the project.

The House’s bill also included an amendment that would block EPA from subjecting coal combustion byproducts, known as coal ash, to ultra-stringent regulations meant for hazardous wastes. Such a designation flies in the face of reason, given that almost 50 percent of coal ash is used to supplement cement in the production of concrete. The amendment would protect the coal ash recycling industry from becoming collateral damage in EPA’s war on coal.

[click to continue…]

Six Reasons Not To Ban Energy Exports*

by Marlo Lewis on April 19, 2012

in Features

Post image for Six Reasons Not To Ban Energy Exports*

[* This column is a lightly edited version of my post earlier this week on National Journal’s Energy Experts Blog.]

You know we’re deep into the silly season when ‘progressives’ champion reverse protectionism – banning exports – as a solution to America’s economic woes. Congress should reject proposals to ban exports of petroleum products and natural gas for at least six reasons.

(1) Export bans are confiscatory, a form of legal plunder.

As economist Richard Stroup has often pointed out, property rights achieve their full value only when they are “3-D”: defined, defendable, and divestible (transferable). A total ban on the sale (transfer) of property rights in petroleum products or natural gas would reduce the asset’s value to zero (assuming no black market and no prospect of the ban’s repeal). To the owner, the injury would be the same as outright confiscation. A ban on sales to foreign customers would be similarly injurious, albeit to a lesser degree.

The foregoing is so obvious one is entitled to assume that harming oil and gas companies is the point. I would simply remind ‘progressives’ that the politics of plunder endangers the social compact on which civil government depends. Why should others respect your rights when you seek to deprive them of theirs? Every act of legal pillage is precedent for further abuses of power. Do you really think your team will always hold the reins of power in Washington, DC? [click to continue…]

Oil Speculators Are the New Boogeymen

by Brian McGraw on April 19, 2012

in Blog, Features

Post image for Oil Speculators Are the New Boogeymen

President Obama and his obedient lap dogs are out in full force this week attempting to convince voters that those evil guys on Wall Street have moved on from destroying the value of their homes to artificially raising the price of gasoline. Soon they are coming for your first born. From one of Obama’s speeches this week:

So today, we’re announcing new steps to strengthen oversight of energy markets.  Things that we can do administratively, we are doing.  And I call on Congress to pass a package of measures to crack down on illegal activity and hold accountable those who manipulate the market for private gain at the expense of millions of working families.  And be specific.

First, Congress should provide immediate funding to put more cops on the beat to monitor activity in energy markets.  This funding would also upgrade technology so that our surveillance and enforcement officers aren’t hamstrung by older and less sophisticated tools than the ones that traders are using.  We should strengthen protections for American consumers, not gut them.  And these markets have expanded significantly.

Now the ability to place blame for rising gasoline prices on Wall Street (or Republicans) is good politics, but its not true. The Center for American Progress report linked to above, chillingly titled “Is Big Oil Rigging Gasoline Prices?” begins by alerting the reader to the fact that the American people, having been polled, believe that Wall Street must be behind the recent rise in gasoline prices. Apparently the average American’s opinion on financial speculation, oligopoly pricing, and their link to gasoline prices is sufficiently meaningful to include in an article not accusing Big Oil of manipulating oil prices, but just putting the question out there. I hastily blogged about that report here, as did the editors of RealClearEnergy.

Obama pulled the exact same stunt last year. He set up some sort of task force/executive agency/working group/etc. to make sure that there isn’t any illegal price manipulation going on. The agency never found anything, and its unclear if they even really did any investigating:

[click to continue…]

Despite Kyoto, UK Carbon Footprint Bigger than Ever

by Marlo Lewis on April 18, 2012

in Blog, Features

Post image for Despite Kyoto, UK Carbon Footprint Bigger than Ever

The European Union (EU) preens itself on being the global leader in the fight against climate change. EU politicians scold the USA for ‘failing’ to ratify Kyoto Protocol and enact cap-and-trade. Within the EU, the UK champions the most aggressive climate policies. So the UK’s carbon footprint must be shrinking, right?

Not according to a new report by the UK’s Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (Defra). The UK’s total net carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions rose 35% between 1990 (the Kyoto Protocol baseline year) and 2005. Emissions declined by 9% from 2008 to 2009 due to the worldwide recession. Nonetheless, the country’s carbon footprint was 20% bigger in 2009 than in 1990. How can this be?

Defra used a life cycle analysis (LCA) to estimate the UK economy’s net emissions. The agency examined not only the CO2 emitted by households and firms within the UK but also the emissions induced by the UK’s demand for imported goods. Carbon dioxide is emitted when goods are manufactured for export in, say, China, and then again when those goods are transported to the UK.

Emissions “embedded” in UK imports are increasing much faster than emissions from domestic production are declining. From 1990 to 2009, CO2 emitted by UK households and firms decreased by 14%. During the same period, emissions from imports directly used by UK consumers increased by 79% and emissions from imports used by UK businesses increased by 128%.

The Kyoto Protocol does not “cover” (regulate) import-induced emissions. So under Kyoto’s accounting rules, UK emissions are down. In reality, the UK has outsourced a sizeable chunk of its emissions along with its heavy industry. As one blogger commented, “The UK’s outsourced emissions almost double its carbon footprint.”

Source: Defra, UK’s Carbon Footprint 1990-2009

EPA’s ‘Carbon Pollution Standard’: Bait-and-Fuel-Switch

by Marlo Lewis on April 13, 2012

in Blog, Features

Post image for EPA’s ‘Carbon Pollution Standard’: Bait-and-Fuel-Switch

Bait-and-switch is one of the oldest tricks of deceptive advertising. The used-car dealer “baits” you onto the lot with an ad promising low interest payments on the car of your dreams. When you get there, the dealer regretfully informs you the car has already been sold. But, no, you haven’t wasted your time, because he’s got this other great car — the “switch” — which has so many superior features and it will only cost you a little more per month.

An even less ethical variant of this tactic is employed in politics. Party A in a negotiation gives an assurance or promise to obtain Party B’s support for a law or regulation. Party A then reneges on the deal once the policy is on the books. EPA’s recently proposed “Carbon Pollution Standard” Rule is a posterchild for this tactic. [click to continue…]

Energy Policymaking in the Obama Age: The Anti-Industrial Legal Complex

by William Yeatman on April 13, 2012

in Blog

Post image for Energy Policymaking in the Obama Age: The Anti-Industrial Legal Complex

Energy policy in Georgia isn’t made by the State legislature. Nor is it made by Governor Nathan Deal. Indeed, energy policy in Georgia isn’t made by any public official in the State. Instead, the most important energy decisions in Georgia are rendered by unelected EPA bureaucrats and environmentalist lawyers.

Welcome to energy policymaking in the Obama age.

Georgia is one of the fastest growing States in the nation. With more people necessarily comes higher demand for electricity. In order to meet the State’s growing need for power, a consortium of non-profit local utilities known as Power4Georgians (P4G) planned on building two 850 megawatt coal fired power plants, one in Washington County and the other in Ben Hill County.

P4G intended to build the Washington County plant first, but the project has been held in up for two years in the courts by relentless anti-coal environmentalist litigation organizations led by the Sierra Club’s “Beyond Coal Campaign.” This is demonstrated by the following brief timeline:

  • On April 8, 2010, the Georgia Environmental Protection Division issued the final air permits for Power4Georgian’s proposed coal-fired power plant in Washington County. They were immediately challenged by environmentalist litigants led by the Sierra Club.
  • On December 16, Georgia Judge Ronit Walker ruled in favor of the environmentalist petitioners and rejected the air permit for Power4Georgians’ proposed coal-fired power plant in Washington County.
  • On November 21, 2011, Georgia environmental regulators re-issued an air permit for the proposed coal-fired power plant in Washington Country.
  • On December 16, 2012 the Southern Environmental Law Center and GreenLaw challenged the Georgia Environmental Protection Division’s air quality permit in the Georgia Office of State Administrative Hearings on behalf of the Fall-line Alliance for a Clean Environment, Ogeechee Riverkeeper, Sierra Club’s Georgia Chapter, and Southern Alliance for Clean Energy.

EPA acted as a de facto intervener on behalf the environmentalist petitioners. As this blog has explained repeatedly, EPA is now waging a regulatory war on the coal industry. The Agency is imposing a series of senseless regulations that serve no public health purpose, and whose only function seems to be to price coal out of the electricity market.

In particular, the challenges brought by Sierra Club et al. relied on EPA’s ridiculous Mercury and Air Toxics Standard. By EPA’s own estimate, the mercury regulation would cost $10 billion annually, and its purpose is to protect America’s supposed population of pregnant, subsistence fisherwomen, who consume more than 300 pounds per year of self caught fish from fresh, inland water bodies. EPA fails to identify any of these purported victims. Rather, they are modeled to exist.

[click to continue…]

A Tale of Two IPOs

by William Yeatman on April 13, 2012

in Blog

Post image for A Tale of Two IPOs

Citing “adverse market conditions,” BrightSource Energy, a wholesale solar power generator, announced yesterday morning that it would shelve a long-planned initial public offering of 6.9 million shares that the company had hoped would fetch 21 to $23 each. The canceled IPO is a blow to the company’s backers, chief among them the American taxpayer. In April 2011, the Department of Energy awarded BrightSource a $160 million subsidy, from the same program that blew almost half a billion on Solyndra. They sure know how to pick ‘em at the DOE!

BrightSource’s setback stands in stark contrast with this week’s ultra-successful IPO by Forum Energy Technologies, an oil-services provider. The company had hoped to sell 16 million shares, but demand far exceeded expectations, and almost 19 million shares were sold, at the high end of Forum Energy’s hoped-for price. Because the services provided by Forum Energy Technologies engender a product—oil—that people actually want to buy*, the company does not need government handouts.

[click to continue…]

Obama Fuel Economy Standards Could Price Almost 7 Million Drivers out of New Car Market – NADA

by Marlo Lewis on April 12, 2012

in Features

Post image for Obama Fuel Economy Standards Could Price Almost 7 Million Drivers out of New Car Market – NADA

In a report released today, the National Auto Dealers Association (NADA) estimates that the Obama administration’s model year (MY) 2011-2025 fuel economy standards could price nearly 7 million consumers out of the market for new motor vehicles.

Based on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA’s) estimate that federal fuel economy standards will add $2,937 to the average cost of new vehicles during MYs 2011-2025, NADA estimates the standards will “remove 3.1-4.2 million households or 5.8-6.8 million licensed drivers from the new motor vehicle market by 2025.” If, as another recent NADA report concludes, the administration’s estimate is unrealistically low, and the actual additional cost due to regulation is $4,803, the standards will “remove 5.4-5.9 million households or 10.0-11.0 licensed drivers from the new vehicle market by 2025.”

The ‘theory’ underpinning NADA’s disturbing conclusions is straightforward. Lower-income households typically cannot purchase a new vehicle without a loan. To qualify for a loan, borrowers must meet minimal lending standards. The most important consideration is the household’s debt service to income (DTI) ratio. By increasing the cost of new vehicles, fuel economy standards can “increase DTI ratios and cause some consumers to no longer qualify for a loan on the least expensive new vehicle, thus removing them from the new car market.”

Currently, the least expensive new vehicle is the 2011 Chevrolet Aveo, which costs approximately $12,750 in 2010 dollars. An estimated 93% of all households “have a financial profile that would allow them to meet the 40% maximum debt to income ratio” and qualify for a loan to purchase a new Aveo. But if fuel economy standards add another, say, $4,000 to the cost, the portion of consumers eligible for financing would drop from 92.8% to 88.5% — a decrease of “5 million households, or 10.6 million of the 245 million licensed drivers expected for MY 2025.” [click to continue…]

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →