Professional environmentalists are cheering President Obama’s rejection of construction permits for the KeystoneXL Pipeline. They are the only ones cheering, aside from a few NIMBY groups and The New York Times Obama’s always-loyal damage control cohorts. Even The Washington Post voted against Obama in this struggle. The pipeline was a small, but important part of our energy infrastructure and none of the arguments put forth against construction of the KeystoneXL Pipeline are convincing.

1. An initial argument claims that the KeystoneXL Pipeline will somehow not provide energy security for the United States.

Because consumers from around the country (and the world) use oil, pipelines are necessary to transfer mind-bogglingly large amounts of it around the country each day. Imagine a scenario where we randomly begin shutting down oil and natural gas pipelines around the United States. The obvious result of decreasing our capacity would be decreased security, as we are less capable of moving oil around our country to deal with shocks, disasters, etc. Now think about what adding a pipeline does: it increases our capacity to transport oil around the country. Ultimately, this must increase to some extent our energy security.

One reason that environmentalists claim no ‘energy security’ benefits is because they believe (or claim to believe) that all of the oil is destined for export.  This is unlikely. As you may well know, the U.S. imports a good chunk of its oil from Canada/Mexico already, but also imports roughly 40% of our petroleum from countries outside the Western Hemisphere, including Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Venezuela, Russia, etc. These non Canadian/Mexican imports must be transported across the Atlantic Ocean, and as Michael Levi notes, its unlikely that it will not ultimately be cheaper to decrease some of our imports from across the Atlantic Ocean, and increase our Canadian oil imports.

Finally, the pipeline would be a good idea even if all the oil is exported, as refiners in the Gulf will profit from the value they add as the oil is refined into gasoline, diesel, etc.

2. Environmentalists claim that gasoline prices will increase for Americans if the pipeline is approved.

This claim is ironic, as the ultimate goal of some of the more seasoned environmental veterans is to make energy (including gasoline) more expensive. Apparently this isn’t selling point for environmentalism has yet to resonate with Americans. So it’s clear that this is a bait-and-switch in terms of appealing to the average American who, at this point, does not want gasoline prices to go up.

Regardless, the effect that the pipeline has on the price of gasoline in the United States shouldn’t change the merits of the project. Some have argued that gasoline is a bit under-priced in the Midwest at the moment because there is a glut of supply and not a ton of outlets for the oil. If supplies tighten in the Midwest, they will loosen elsewhere, including hopefully refineries on the Gulf Coast. And if they happen to result in higher prices in the Midwest and lower prices globally, this is also not something we should attempt to stop. Americans generally understand that trade restrictions make us all worse off, and that free trade is beneficial. Blocking the pipeline is a form of economic protectionism, its just slightly more hidden in the form of a regulation rather than a tariff.

3. The environmentalists claim that job projections are vastly inflated.

Industries lobbying for certain policies or projects exaggerate their beneficial effects, news at 11. It’s obvious that increased economic activity will add jobs, quibbling over the numbers is pointless. I will also point out that the same groups don’t have issues with accepting obviously inflated jobs numbers when the jobs involve installing windmills, solar panels, or cleaning up power plants.

4. The pipeline is “game over” for the climate. This line came from our country’s esteemed scientist James Hansen, and was delivered by assuming (1) that the oil would sit in the ground without the pipeline, and (2) that the entirety of the oil sands will be developed. Neither premise is likely. The oil can quite likely find an additional route to Asia (there’s too much money for the Canadian government in this to leave it all in the ground). Ironically, the 2nd-best route chosen by TransCanada will almost certainly be less efficient than the original planned route, and could ultimately increase carbon emissions especially if they begin shipping it directly to China. Moreover, to get the carbon dioxide emissions Hansen described (2ooppm) would take until the year 3316. Even if that number is off by a significant amount, we don’t plan even 100 years into the future (for good reason, we have no idea the effects of new technologies, etc.).

Finally, even if you agree that it is in the world’s best interest to begin drastically scaling back carbon dioxide emissions (and that the international will-power exists to do this or that its a good idea to proceed without international agreement), the oil sands are still going to be developed. The oil sands are only 5-10% more carbon intensive than a standard baseline for oil production, and would proceed even with a moderate price on carbon. Cheap carbon reductions are more likely to come, initially, from electricity production rather than oil production. Carbon free alternatives to carbon-intensive electricity production are much closer to working on a scale that would be necessary when compared with substitutes for oil, which are mostly non-existent except for the ever-fledgling biofuels industry.

**

Ultimately, the President kowtowed to a small special interest group that will play a pivotal role in his re-election, despite the conflict with other labor groups who supported construction of the pipeline. Somehow, environmentalists are happy, despite the high probability that this pipeline will still soon be built, perhaps even with President Obama’s blessings in 2013.

The Republicans may have screwed up by forcing Obama to decide on the pipeline (and giving him an excuse that he could sell to the public), though this issue will remain a large symbol in the 2012 campaign(s). Indeed, many centrist Democrats have already distanced themselves from the President’s decision.

The Administration’s reasoning for rejecting the permit is mostly bogus. They might have a legal excuse, but there are hundred’s of thousands of miles of pipelines around the U.S., and they cause no serious problems. If Obama is upset that Republicans have pushed him towards an “arbitrary” deadline, he must acknowledge that Republicans are upset that the President began this debacle by playing politics with our nation’s energy needs.

The pipeline is being routed away from what was claimed to be an environmentally sensitive area (which, many experts including the State Department, don’t really believe) to a safer area, yet we have to spend months and months studying the new route? It is overwhelmingly likely that there will be absolutely nothing wrong with the new route, and this is just a standard tactic to delay a politically tough decision.

We will see what happens in the months to come.

Today, the U.S. EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) proudly unveil their new, improved, long-awaited, supah-dupah, “next generation” fuel economy sticker. All model year 2013 vehicles will have to display the redesigned stickers.

“The new labels, which are the most dramatic overhaul to fuel economy labels since the program began more than 30 years ago, will provide more comprehensive fuel efficiency information, including estimated annual fuel costs, savings, as well as information on each vehicle’s environmental impact,” EPA’s press releaseenthuses. Only in the makework world of bureaucracy central would this “overhaul” of a label be hailed as “dramatic.”

As my colleague William Yeatman joked when I told him the news: “Anyone can have a sticker, but a next generation sticker – the future is here, my friend!”

In their original August 2010 regulatory proposal, the agencies wanted the new label to include letter grades based on the car’s fuel economy and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids would get an A+; the biggest, heaviest, gas guzzling SUVs would get a D.

However, in December 2010, 53 House Members sent a bipartisan letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson and DOT Secretary Ray LaHood protesting that letter grades would “unfairly promote certain vehicles over others.” Indeed, that was the point. Stigmatize SUVs and other politically-incorrect vehicles by giving them bad grades.

Worse, grading cars implicitly means grading the people who buy them. People who buy cars with super-low or zero emissions are caring and ahead of the curve. Those who buy gas guzzlers are yokels who voted for Bush and wear baseball caps in restaurants. The South Park spoof on the “Toyonda Pius,” Smug Alert, all-too-accurately depicts the greener-than-thou pretension of EPA and NHTSA’s proposed grading system.

Rebuked by those wielding the power of the purse, the agencies relented and the “next generation” sticker does not include letter grades. To view the current sticker, click here. To see what the scolds at EPA and NHTSA originally planned to replace it with, click here.

Clearly, these folks are into behavior modification. How potent will the redesigned label be in modifying your behavior?

Among other rationales for proposing to grade cars based on their fuel economy, the agencies claimed that adding letter grades would help consumers make smarter purchases by combating something called the “MPG Illusion.”

The MPG Illusion refers to the common mis-perception that fuel savings from mpg increases are linear. People often assume that each additional 1 mile per gallon increase in a vehicle’s fuel economy reduces fuel consumption and gasoline expenditures by the same amount. Hence, some may conclude, if they can’t afford (or simply don’t want) a Toyota Prius, Chevy Volt, or some other high-mpg vehicle, there’s no point in buying a car with only modestly better fuel economy than their current vehicle. In reality, fuel consumption avoided and dollars saved decrease as mpg increases. Which is to say, the biggest fuel savings come from modest fuel-economy improvements in the lowest mpg vehicles. Some hypothetical (indeed fanciful) examples will make this crystal clear.

Suppose that your current car gets only 1 mile per gallon, you drive 100 miles per week, and gasoline costs $3.00 per gallon. This means you consume 100 gallons and spend $300.00 per week. If you replace that car with a 2 mpg vehicle, you’ll consume 50 gallons and save $150.00 per week. At the very bottom end of the scale, even a 1 mpg increase in fuel economy yields big savings.

Suppose now that your current car gets 99 mpg, you drive 100 miles per week, and gas costs $3.00. This means you consume 1.01 gallons and spend $3.03 per week. If you replace that car with a 100 mpg vehicle, you’ll consume 1 gallon and save 3 cents per week. At the very top of the fuel economy scale, the fuel and cost savings from an extra 1 mpg are negligible.

Professors Rick Larrick and Jack Soll of Princeton University put the MPG Illusion on the map when they published an article about it in Science magazine. They explain the basic arithmetic in this Youtube video. Their illustrative case assumes a motorist who drives 100 miles per week. If the motorist has a 10 mpg vehicle and switches to a 20 mpg vehicle, he’ll cut his weekly fuel consumption from 10 gallons to 5 gallons — a savings of 5 gallons. If the motorist has a 25 mpg vehicle and switches to a 50 mpg  vehicle, he’ll cut his weekly fuel consumption from 4 gallons to 2 gallons — a savings of only 2 gallons. “The key insight,” says Larrick, “is that improving inefficient cars that have low mpgs, by even low mpg increases, saves a lot of gas.”

To counter the MPG Illusion, Larrick and Soll advise policymakers to express fuel economy in terms of the amount of fuel consumed per unit of distance traveled. Expressing fuel economy in the conventional way, as miles per gallon, leads people to “undervalue small improvements on inefficient vehicles” and “underestimate the value of removing the most fuel inefficient vehicles,” the researchers argue in Science. One could also say — they don’t — that mpg ratings lead people to overestimate the value of purchasing a hybrid.

In any event, Larrick and Soll’s paper was music to the ears of the anti-SUV crowd. Greenies would love to believe that the market for SUVs is sustained by an “illusion.” Because if that is so, then EPA and NHTSA can depress SUV sales just by making simple changes in how fuel-economy information is presented — just by redesigning the sticker!

Consistent with Larrick and Soll’s advice, the ”next generation” sticker includes an estimate of how many gallons it takes to drive 100 miles.

Years of SUV-bashing, fuel-economy proselytizing, climate-change scaremongering, and high gasoline prices have failed to kill SUV sales. Could that have something to do with the attributes of the vehicles — their size, safety, and utility? Are there no physical differences between SUVs and cars greenies insist are “smart?” Or is it simply, or mainly, a faulty optic that sustains a market for SUVs?

If the MPG Illusion has anything to do with SUV sales, then you gotta ask: Who’s responsible for foisting the illusion on the public? Answer: the very people who’ve tried to brow beat us into believing that the only vehicle attribute worth considering is its mpg — the preachers and proselytizers of fuel economy! There’s no escaping the law of unintended consequences.

The Los Angeles Times editorial board last week penned a widely circulated thesis that “[t]he environment and public health will be thrown under a bus for the sake of his [President Barack Obama’s] reelection in 2012.” While I would love, love, love for this to be true, it isn’t; the L.A. Times editorial board’s contention that the president has abandoned greens to score political points is bunk.

In fact, this administration is waging a war on conventional energy supply and demand in this country, with very real repercussions for everyday Americans. Just ask the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, oil and gas drillers along the Gulf, or coal miners in Appalachia, all of whom have urged the Congress to roll back the president’s regulatory crackdown in an effort to protect their livelihoods.

To make its point, the L.A. Times editorial board cited two examples of the president supposedly abandoned his green base as a sop to industry. The first was the EPA’s decision last week to “indefinitely” delay the implementation of Maximum Achievable Control Technology retrofits on industrial boilers to control the emissions of hazardous air pollutants under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act. According to the L.A. Times editorial board:

The EPA indefinitely rescinded the proposal this week, citing Obama’s January executive order on regulations and claiming that the agency hadn’t had time to properly address industry concerns about the rule since a draft was released in September…. The economy is the top subject on Americans’ minds, and Obama no doubt figures he can blunt criticism of his regulatory record and maybe corral some independent voters by cutting smokestack industries a little slack. Never mind that the economic calculus doesn’t pencil out; according to EPA estimates, the rule on industrial boilers would cost polluters $1.4 billion a year, but the value of its health benefits would range from $22 billion to $54 billion. And never mind that the rule would prevent up to 6,500 premature deaths each year.

The L.A. Times editorial board made two errors in this passage. The first was to claim that the EPA acted to address industry concerns. To be sure, American industry is aghast at this administrations war on energy, but that wasn’t the reason that the EPA delayed the study. Rather, the EPA acted due to…opposition from within the Obama administration.

That’s right. This wasn’t the first time the EPA tried to delay the rule. It tried last January, after a still-unpublished Commerce Department study eviscerated the EPA’s economic analysis. Despite requests from Republican Members of Congress, the administration won’t release the study. So much for “transparency.”

The L.A. Times editorial board’s second error is related: It parroted the EPA’s ridiculous cost-benefit analysis, the same one that the Commerce Department blew out of the water. To get an idea of what the Commerce Department objected to, read this recent Competitive Enterprise Institute study by Garrett A. Vaughn, “Clearing the Air on the EPA’s False Regulatory Benefit-Cost Estimates and Its Anti-Carbon Agenda.”

The L.A. Times editorial board’s other example of President Obama supposedly forsaking environmentalists is the administration’s having put on the “slow track” new toxic rules for coal ash. OK…so the coal ash rule is on the “slow track”… I’ll grant that to the L.A. Times editorial board. But what about: the Hazardous Air Pollutant Utility MACT, Regional Haze, unprecedented greenhouse gas regulations under the Clean Air Act, unprecedented tightening of all criteria pollutants for National Ambient Air Quality Standards, a potential re-interpretation of Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act to impose a 100-foot buffer rule, the creation of a new “pollutant,” salinity, under the Clean Water Act, and once-through cycling. Every single one of these “fast-track” regulations is targeted at either coal supply or coal demand. The L.A. Times editorial board can’t see the forest for the trees.

The L.A. Times’s whiny editorial evinces a character defect of the environmental movement as a whole. Namely, these green special interests are NEVER satisfied.

Consider this L.A. Times op-ed from last week, “The Wrong Sites for Solar,” in which two environmentalists argued that Obama administration’s push for solar power on federal lands is a bad idea, because it would defile a desert.

Or, note this recent L.A. Times story, about how the Sierra Club is demanding that California Governor Jerry Brown overhaul the State’s plan for a cap-and-trade energy rationing scheme, so as to make it more onerous on what’s left of California’s industrial base.

They get solar power…but it’s not good enough, because it might prove inimical to a turtle in a desert wasteland. They get a cap-and-trade energy rationing scheme… but it’s not good enough, because it wouldn’t chase away all of California’s “dirty” industry. There’s no winning with environmentalist special interests.

Thanks to the greens’ implacable nature, the energy industry in California is a total basket case, as I explain with Jeremy Lott in this American Spectator piece.

According to the World Health Organization, more than half the world’s population uses dung, crop matter, and coal to cook and heat inside their homes. Full disclosure: I’ve lived in a dung-powered home. From 2004 to 2006, I was a Peace Corps volunteer in the Kyrgyz Republic. The family with whom I lived was poor even by Kyrgyz standards, and sheep poop was a primary fuel. The furnace ventilation system was inefficient, to say the least, and smoke would get everywhere. Such smoke kills 1.6 million people every year. Every 20 seconds, another poor person dies of indoor air pollution.

Thankfully, there’s a solution to this killer problem: coal fired power plants. By building a centralized coal power plant, it is possible to take energy production out of the home, and thereby save lives. Allow me to repeat: Coal power saves lives in the developing world. Of course, there are many other benefits to affordable and reliable energy; foremost among them is economic growth.

The World Bank was established in 1945 to fight poverty. Accordingly, the institution long has financed new coal fired power plants in developing countries, for the life-saving and prosperity-creating reasons I cite above.

Unfortunately for the world’s poor, that’s about to change. ClimateWire (subscription required) reported today on a draft World Bank energy strategy that commits the bank to stop lending money for new coal projects in more than 80 developing countries.

The World Bank is poised to adopt this anti-coal, anti-human strategy as a sop to “green” special interests, for which the supposed dangers of global warming, decades into the future, are direr than the clear and present danger of indoor air pollution, which kills millions today. Such are the warped priorities of modern environmentalists.

In a front page story today, the Washington Post – of all places! – revealed that unemployment for so-called “green jobs” is pretty darn high.  (See Retrained for green jobs, but still waiting on work by Michael A. Fletcher).  You mean, all the Obama and enviro promises about green jobs being the next, great economic boom were…wrong?  People aren’t voluntarily choosing to pay more for “clean energy”?

Who could have guessed that the Great Green Dream has been “undercut by the simple economic fact that fossil fuels remain cheaper than renewables”?

So, the Obama administration shoveled out $90 billion out of the $814 billion economic stimulus bill for clean energy stuff, like weatherizing public buildings, constructing “advanced” (?) battery plants in the Midwest, financing solar electric plants in the Mojave desert, and training green energy workers.

But the huge federal investment has run headlong into the stubborn reality that the market for renewable energy products – and workers – remains in its infancy.

Well, that can’t be good, all those 90 billion smackeroos just blown on nothing.  So, surely the next step is to pull the plug on this economy-busting boondoggle force people to buy green energy stuff.

Both Obama administration officials and green energy executives say that the business needs not just government incentives, but also rules and regulations that force people and business to turn to renewable energy.

Without government mandates dictating how much renewable energy utilities must use to generate electricity, or placing a price on the polluting carbon emitted by fossil fuels, they say, green energy cannot begin to reach its job creation potential.

I mean, just look at the potential here.  The poor guy profiled in the WaPo story was trained in: solar installation,sustainable landscape design, recycling and green demolition (which has something to do with dismantling buildings, rather than demolishing them).  What if we could just force everyone to dip into their pockets to buy expensive solar stuff, contemplate how sustainable their landscape design could be, and pull apart buildings brick by brick!

With some 7.5 million jobs lost from the US economy since December 2007, it’s astounding to realize there’s a movement afoot to force people to spend money on the green equivalent of ditch-digging make-work.