Everyone complains about high gas prices, yet viable solutions to today’s energy crisis get tabled by the very people who do the complaining. Certain Californians come to mind — folks who philosophically luxuriate in a moratorium on offshore drilling only to boil over on Wilshire Boulevard when faced with gas at $5.50 a gallon.
2008
EPA Must Be Licking Its Chops [Marlo Lewis]
I’m reading one of the leaked versions (May 30 draft) of the EPA’s forthcoming Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR), “Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act.” The ANPR presents information relevant to, and solicits public comment on, how EPA should respond to the Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA.
Among scores of issues discussed, EPA raises the question of what level of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction from the transportation sector would be “appropriate” if (as seems very likely) the agency decides that GHG emissions from new motor vehicles endanger public health and welfare.
“Without prejudging this important issue, and for illustrative purposes only,” EPA compares the GHG-emission reductions achievable by the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) with three long-term reduction goals policymakers are debating. Those goals are: President Bush’s goal of stopping U.S. GHG emissions growth by 2025, the IPCC goal of stabilizing global GHG emissions at 450 parts per million (ppm) by 2050, and the Lieberman-Warner goal of reducing U.S. emissions 70 percent by 2050.
EISA, for those who may not recall, is the energy-related legislation Congress passed and the President signed in December 2007. EISA requires new passenger vehicles and light trucks on average to get 35 miles per gallon by 2020 — a 40-percent increase in mpg compared to pre-EISA fuel economy standards. In addition, EISA requires blenders and refiners to sell 36 billion gallons of biofuel annually by 2022, of which 21 billion gallons must be “advanced” (low-carbon) biofuels.
The EISA targets will be tough to meet. Of 1,153 vehicle models on the road in 2007, only two met the 35 mpg standard. Advanced biofuels have been “just around the corner” for years, and may remain prohibitively costly for years to come.
But let’s assume the auto and fuel industries overcome all economic and technical challenges and hit their EISA fuel economy and renewable fuel targets. Will they come close to achieving any of the aforementioned long-term emission reduction goals?
Not by a country mile. According to EPA (p. 83), “EISA provides about 25 percent, 15 percent, and 10 percent of the transportation emissions reductions that would be needed for mobile sources to make a proportional contribution to meeting the President’s climate goal by 2050 . . . , the IPCC 450 ppm stabilization scenario by 2050 . . . , and a 70 percent reduction in 2005 levels in 2050 . . . , respectively.”
If EISA is just a baby step towards the auto emission reductions EPA will require, then Detroit is in for a rough ride. Even the fuel-economy zealots at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration caution [see p. III-3 of this report] that, as fuel economy standards increase, “the incremental benefits [in fuel savings at the pump] are approximately constant while the incremental costs [to the manufacturer] increase rapidly.” Consequently, “as stringency is increased, costs rise out of proportion to the benefits or the fuel savings. Increasingly higher costs have a negative impact on sales and employment.”
But be not afraid, because EPA’s regs will increase the number of “green jobs” — at EPA. Even if the eventual rule is limited just to the transport sector (very unlikely, given the Clean Air Act’s multiple interconnections), EPA will be Technology-Forcing Central for decades to come. College grads looking for job security should send their resumes to Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air & Radiation, Climate and Transportation Division. Unfortunately, there won’t be enough jobs to go around for all the autoworkers displaced by far more stringent standards on a less profitable class of automobiles.
Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda said on Tuesday the base year for a goal of at least halving global greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 — agreed on by Group of Eight leaders on Tuesday — was "current levels".
China and India led objections by five developing nations to emissions-reductions targets set by the Group of Eight industrial powers, saying a clampdown on fossil fuels would suppress economic growth.
By pressing developing countries to do more to combat global warming, the Group of Eight has set the stage for a broader showdown pitting most of the world's biggest economies against poorer-but-faster-growing ones.
The leaders of the G-8 and of major developing countries will discuss how to respond to energy security and climate change tomorrow. Their first instinct will likely be to propose new regulations. Yet market forces may already be solving these problems, as high oil prices drive a shift away from the polluting, petroleum-fueled internal combustion engine to cleaner forms of transportation
With gasoline prices above $4 a gallon and no relief in sight, it makes perfect sense to open some of America's extensive off-limits areas to oil drilling. Yet Congress refuses to budge, citing a number of weak excuses. Among them:
Ever wonder how Al Gore, the United Nations, and company continue to get away with their claim of a “scientific consensus” confirming their doomsday view of global warming? Look no farther than Wikipedia for a stunning example of how the global-warming propaganda machine works.
World leaders on Tuesday endorsed halving world emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050, edging forward in the battle against global warming but stopping short of tough, nearer-term targets
New Jersey has missed its first major commitment under the Global Warming Response Act of 2007, which calls for the State to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions 20% by 2020 and 80% by 2050. The law stipulates that the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection craft a preliminary plan to achieve its 2020 target “no later than June 30, 2008,” but no climate change mitigation strategy has yet been issued. Elaine Makatura, a DEP spokeswoman, said that "it has only been delayed by a couple of months."
In Georgia, Judge Thelma Wyatt Cummings Moore overturned the ruling of an administrative court approving the Georgia Environmental Protection Division's decision to issue an air pollution permit for a planned coal fired power plant in Early County. While praising the ruling, Patty Durand, director of the Georgia Chapter of the Sierra Club, said that Georgians "can find other ways to produce cleaner, more economically beneficial energy." But Ms. Durand’s Sierra Club opposes carbon-free nuclear energy and hydropower. It is also against expanded drilling for natural gas, which emits roughly half the carbon dioxide of coal. Moreover, wind power doesn’t work in Georgia; According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Georgia has one of the lowest potentials for wind power of any State in America. Georgia could turn to solar, but at 30 cents a kilowatt hour, it’s almost 5 times more expensive than the electricity that Georgians buy now.
Delaware Governor Gov. Ruth Ann Minner (D) signed S.B. 263, a bill that makes the State a party to the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a multi-state cap-and-trade climate change program in the Northeast. Experts say that RGGI is guaranteed to raise utility bills. However, they are not sure if it will decrease emissions, because it only applies to a portion of electricity generating units in the region. As a result, demand is likely to increase for electricity from unregulated, cheaper, more carbon-intensive wholesale sellers of power, a phenomenon known as “emissions leakage.”
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
CEI.org