May 2009

Eco-sailors rescued by oil tanker

by Marlo Lewis on May 6, 2009

in Blog

“An expedition team which set sail from Plymouth [England] on a 5,000-mile carbon-emission free trip to Greenland have been rescued by an oil tanker,” BBC News reports. The crew’s solar and wind powered vessel capsized three times in stormy weather (68 mph winds). So far, at least, nobody has blamed global warming for the bad weather.

The irony of an oil tanker rescuing anti-fossil fuel crusaders was of course not lost on the BBC. The moral of the story should be obvious. Environmentalism is a luxury made possible by the comparative wealth and safety of a civilization powered predominantly by coal, oil, and natural gas. Restricting and, ultimately, prohibiting fossil energy use is a recipe for disaster and death.

So, have any of the eco-sailors had a change of heart or even second thoughts about the alleged evils of fossil fuels? The BBC report does not say, which probably means none did.

Environmentalist Edit-Whores Strike Again

by Paul Chesser, Heartland Institute Correspondent on May 6, 2009

in Blog

Those of us who post to this blog and others in the global warming debunkification (okay, I made that word up) movement are used to being ignored — or (usually) politely being humored first, and then ignored — but this experience from last week I thought was worth noting in the blogosphere.

Last week the Heartland folks referred a reporter to me from a Midwestern weekly newspaper, who had some questions about a greenhouse gas inventory her county was compiling and where she could expect public policy to go next. I had no idea where her sentiments were on the issue, but I gave her straight feedback based upon examples I’d seen elsewhere. What she did with it after that was up to her, and I did not care much either way what she did, given my past experience with environmentalist journalists.

Turns out she sought to do a balanced article, but her editor would have none of it. I usually like to name names with things like this, but I assume the reporter wants to keep her job so I will refrain. This is what she emailed me:

Paul:
Thank you so much for your responses. I did a story, but my editor removed all references to debate about climate change, global warming or whatever they are calling it now. He didn’t tell me, which is unusual when removing such a huge chunk of  a story, but I just discovered it today after it didn’t appear in our print edition.

It is online, but is not as I wrote it. I’m so sorry. I will still try to get both sides of all issues out. That’s all I can do. Thank you, and again, I apologize.

So, Mr. Waxman, how much global warming will your bill avert?

by Marlo Lewis on May 6, 2009

in Blog

The Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade (energy tax) bill aims to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions 20% below 2005 levels by 2020, 42% below by 2030, and 83% below by 2050. The cumulative cost in reduced GDP would likely total trillions of dollars. How much bang would we get for the buck?

Today, on Masterresource.org, climate scientist Chip Knappenberger shows by the numbers that the Waxman-Markey bill “will have virtually no impact on the future course of the earth’s climate.”

To calculate the climatic effects of the bill, Chip uses the MAGICC* climate model developed by the National Center for Climate Research, and assumes a climate sensitivity of 3°C (in other words, a doubling of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations above pre-industrial levels is assumed to produce 3°C of warming).

MAGICC reveals that an 83% reduction in U.S. emissions “will only produce a global temperature ’savings’ during the next 50 years of about 0.05ºC.”  Translating a bit, the temperature reduction is nine hundredths of one degree Fahrenheit, or two years of avoided warming.

* Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse-gas Induced Climate Change

In the News

by William Yeatman on May 6, 2009

in Blog

Gallup: Al Gore Is Failing
Paul Bedard, U.S. News and World Report, 5 May 2009

He admits that “it’s counterintuitive,” but Gallup Poll Editor Frank Newport says he sees no evidence that Al Gore’s campaign against global warming is winning. “It’s just not caught on,” says Newport. “They have failed.” Or, more bluntly: “Any measure that we look at shows Al Gore’s losing at the moment. The public is just not that concerned.” What the public is worried about: the economy. Newport says the economy trumps the environment right now, a strong indicator that President Obama’s bid to put a cap-and-trade pollution regime into operation isn’t likely to be politically popular.

Award Winning Boat Anchors
Paul Chesser, American Spectator, 6 May 2009

Irony is so much sweeter when its victims have slathered their false assertions with syrupy  arrogance and  mocking mix-ins.

Chris Horner on the White House Energy Summit

by Richard Morrison on May 5, 2009

in Blog, videos

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1cOLI2n2Ec 285 234]

New Kansas Governor Reverses Position, Allows Coal Plant

by William Yeatman on May 5, 2009

in Politics

Two years ago, Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius (D) refused to permit the construction of two coal-fired power plants in the southwestern part of the State because she is alarmed by global warming. Her constituents clearly disagreed with her decision-the State Legislature has passed four bills to overturn Sebelius and allow the coal plants. Each time, however, the Governor vetoed the will of the people, most recently this week. President Barack Obama chose Sebelius to become the Secretary of Human Health and Services, and she was confirmed by the United States Senate a week ago. Sebelius’s successor, Lt. Gov. Mark Parkinson, had said that he will veto any bill that allows the construction of the plants, but in a stunning reversal, he has decided to allow the construction of one 895 megawatt plant, according to the Kansas City Star.

Flex-fuel mandates: throwing bad regulation after bad

by Marlo Lewis on May 5, 2009

Rent-seeking–the whoring after market-rigging rules and subsidies–is a true addiction, an appetite that grows with feeding. For the ethanol lobby, it’s not enough that government props up their product with Soviet-style production quota, protective tariffs, a 45-cent-per-gallon blenders tax credit, R&D handouts, and other support. Like the Johnny Rocco character portrayed by Edward G. Robinson in the Bogart and Becall classic Key Largo, the ethanol lobby always wants “more.”

And there are always well-meaning politicians happy to oblige. Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) and Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) have introduced bipartisan legislation (HR 1476, S. 835) requiring each automaker to ensure that at least 50% of the vehicles it manufactures or sells are flex-fuel by 2012 and at least 80% by 2015. A flex-fuel vehicle is one that can run on either regular gasoline or E-85 (a blend containing 85% ethanol), or anything in between.

Supporters acknowledge that flex-fuel technology will add about $100 to the purchase price of a new car. But, they claim, this expense will be more than offset by the reduction in fuel costs. That’s an interesting theory. However, according to www.fueleconomy.gov, a Web site jointly administered by DOE and EPA, it costs hundreds of dollars more annually to fill up a flex-fuel vehicle with E-85 than with regular gasoline. No wonder so few people buy flex fuel vehicles!

When will mandatists learn? If the combination of flex-fuel vehicles and E-85 is such a great bargain, consumers will demand them, and profit-seeking companies will produce and deliver them for sale, all without regulatory coercion. Alternatively, if the flex-fuel/E-85 package is not a good buy, no amount of government meddling can make it so.

For further discussion, see my post today on www.Masterresource.org.

In the News

by William Yeatman on May 5, 2009

in Blog

GM Troubles Repeat British Auto Industry Mistakes of 1970s
Iain Murray, DC Examiner, 4 May 2009

General Motors is now co-owned by the American taxpayer and labor unions.  As a Briton, I find this development astonishing.  It repeats the mistakes of the 1970s  Labor government, which essentially killed off the British auto industry.  America should avoid the same mistake.

Greenbacks for Green Energy Come from Taxpayer Pockets
Fred Smith & William Yeatman, DC Examiner, 5 May 2009

President Barack Obama recently named business consultant Jeffrey Zients as head of a new performance office tasked with reducing government waste. The irony of creating a bureaucracy to trim federal fat aside, we suggest an obvious first target for the incoming performance czar: The Department of Energy’s (DOE) “clean energy” development bank.

Forget the Environment, Dems Just Want You To Show Them the Money
Phil Kerpen, FoxNews, 4 May 2009

The central question in the debate over global warming and cap-and-trade has nothing to do with the environment or even with energy.  It’s all about one thing: revenue.  Kudos to Republican leaders for taking a clear stand that they will oppose any global warming bill that raises federal taxes, but as long as Democrats refuse to make the same commitment, the global warming debate is about one thing: revenue.

In the News

by William Yeatman on May 4, 2009

in Blog

Lobbyists Help Dems Draft Climate Bill
Tom LoBianco, Washington Times, 4 May 2009

Democratic lawmakers who spent much of the Bush administration blasting officials for letting energy lobbyists write national policy have turned to a coalition of business and environmental groups to help draft their own sweeping climate bill.

The Bias against Oil and Gas
Robert Samuelson, Washington Post, 4 May 2009

Considering the brutal recession, you’d expect the Obama administration to be obsessed with creating jobs. And so it is, say the president and his supporters. The trouble is that there’s one glaring exception to their claims: the oil and natural gas industries. The administration is biased against them — a bias that makes no sense on either economic or energy grounds. Almost everyone loves to hate the world’s Exxons, but promoting domestic drilling is simply common sense.

Climate Model Predictions: Time for a Reality Check
Dr. Roy Spenser, RightSideNews, 2 May 2009

The fear of anthropogenic global warming is based almost entirely upon computerized climate model simulations of how the global atmosphere will respond to slowly increasing carbon dioxide concentrations. There are now over 20 models being tracked by the IPCC, and they project levels of warming ranging from pretty significant to catastrophic by late in this century.

Cooler Heads Digest 1 May 2009

by William Yeatman on May 4, 2009

in Cooler Heads Digest

In the News

The Real Danger of Global Warming
Vaclav Klaus, RealClearWorld.com, 1 May 2009

Obama’s Plan “Necessarily” Skyrockets Energy Bills
Paul Chesser, DC Examiner, 1 May 2009

Back to the Good Old Days
Paul Driessen, GlobalWarming.org, 1 May 2009

CO2 Fantasy
Deroy Murdock, Indianapolis Star, 30 April 2009

Make Believe World of Cap-and-Trade
Vincent Carroll, Denver Post, 29 April 2009

Al Gore Is Wrong on Arctic Ice
Kenneth P. Green, MasterResource.org, 30 April 2009

A Primer for Deniers
Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post, 30 April 2009

Chevy Volt Not Ready To Roll
Charles Lane, Washington Post, 29 April 2009

Al Gore’s Morals vs. Your Pocketbook
Morning Bell, Heritage.org, 27 April 2009

News You Can Use

  • Sea ice around Antarctica has been increasing at a rate of 100,000 sq km a decade since the 1970s, according to a new study by the British Antarctic Survey, published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters (reported in The Australian).
  • A new Zogby Poll shows that 57% of Americans oppose cap-and-trade schemes.
  • Charles River Associates released a study this week estimating that President Barack Obama’s cap-and-trade scheme would kill 1.9 million jobs by 2020.

Inside the Beltway

Myron Ebell

Waxman-Markey Update

After cancelling this week’s scheduled subcommittee mark-up, Representatives Henry Waxman (D-Beverly Hills) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.) have spent the week trying to gain enough support to pass their energy rationing bill out of committee. Very few details have emerged from these backroom sessions, and so it is not clear that Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Waxman and Energy and the Environment Subcommittee Chairman Markey have yet made enough concessions to win over Democrats representing districts that produce oil or coal, rely on coal for electricity, or have energy-intensive manufacturing. These Democrats are: Mike Ross (Ark.), Gene Green (Tex.), Charles Melancon (La.), Mike Doyle (Penna.), Rick Boucher (Va.), Bart Stupak (Mich.), John Barrow (Ga.), Bart Gordon (Tenn.), Jim Matheson (Utah), G. K. Butterfield (NC), Baron Hill (Ind.), and Zack Space (Ohio). Thus whether the committee holds a mark-up next week is still up in the air as I write this.

Highlights from Hearings

In the meantime, I have been thumbing through the transcripts of last week’s three long days of hearings on the Waxman-Markey draft bill. The highlights would fill many pages. Let me just mention a few.

The panel of witnesses representing the U. S. Climate Action Partnership, a big business special interest coalition of companies that wrote the cap-and trade title of the bill, naturally all testified in favor of the Waxman-Markey bill.  However, they were asked by Representative Joe Barton (R-Tex.), the ranking Republican on the Committee, whether they would support the cap-and-trade program if all the ration coupons were auctioned rather than given away free to them. No, sorry, they would then have to oppose the bill. From which I conclude that global warming is a crisis as long as you think you can get rich off it.

Former Vice President Al Gore was the star witness of the hearings, but former House Speaker Newt Gingrich stole the show.  I am far from being a fan of Gingrich, but he did a great job attacking the premises of the bill.  Gingrich was a fill-in witness after Chairman Waxman refused the Republicans’ request to invite Christopher, Viscount Monckton to testify.

Gore’s testimony was much less impressive.  He is still making scientific claims that are not supported or have been discredited in the scientific literature.  He also claimed that it is possible to remake America’s energy sector even more quickly than the targets in the bill, but doesn’t see that the first obstacle to doing this is the regulatory structure that can delay building new transmission lines, wind farms, etc. for decades.  And while the doomsday clock is running, he still wants to think about nuclear power as something we should consider.

In reply to a question from Representative Marsha Blackburn (D-Tenn.), Gore assured the Committee that every penny he had earned from his investments in renewable energy and from his movie and book had been donated to his non-profit group, the Alliance for Climate Protection.  He did not mention that his tax deductible donations to the Alliance for Climate Protection are being used to promote policies that would increase the value of his investments.  Nor did he promise that all future pennies earned would also be donated to some worthy cause.  That’s the real point.  The real profits from investments in renewable will come if energy-rationing legislation is enacted.  So Al could still be set to make hundreds of millions, perhaps even billions, of dollars for himself and his partners at Generation Investment Management and Kleiner Perkins.

Renewables Can’t Compete

Julie Walsh

The Energy Information Agency sent us their calculations for the levelized costs of different power sources in 2016, minus any incentives, under an adjustment that simulates a $15 per ton CO2 emissions fee. (rounded)

Natural gas advanced combined cycle: 8 ¢/kwh
Conventional coal: 9.3 ¢/kwh
Advanced nuclear: 10.5 ¢/kwh
Biomass: 11.3 ¢/kwh
Wind: 11.6 ¢/kwh
Advanced coal with carbon capture and sequestration: 11.5 ¢/kwh
Offshore wind: 22.5 ¢/kwh
Solar thermal: 25.8 ¢/kwh

Therefore the “rush to gas” fears are justified and renewables would still require massive subsidies.

(Email Julie Walsh at jwalsh@cei.org for EIA’s excel spread sheet calculations and notes. Source:  Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook, 2009 DOE/EIA-0383(2009).)

Across the States

EPA Revokes Permit for Navajo Power Plant

Last week the Environmental Protection Agency withdrew an air quality permit for a proposed coal fired power plant in the Four Corners administered by the Navajo Nation. The EPA reasoned that “complete analysis” had not yet been performed when it issued the permit last summer. Navajo Nation President Joe Shirley said in a statement the decision was further proof that the U.S. government isn’t “honest and truthful in its dealings with Native America.”

California

On Monday, the California Air Resources Board approved a Low Carbon Fuel Standard that requires the State’s fuel supply to achieve a 10% reduction in “carbon intensity” by 2020. CARB’s Mary Nichols said that the measure will break California’s petroleum habit, but Severin Borenstein, director of the Energy Institute at the University of California, Berkeley, told the Miami Herald that there’s no certainty alternative fuels will be ready to meet the demand.

Maryland

The DC Examiner reports this week that Montgomery County (Maryland) officials want to scale back some of the county’s ambitious efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in order to help bridge a budget gap of more than $550 million.

Around the World

Canadian Emissions Increase

Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions jumped 4% from 2006 to 2007, according to Environment Canada. Since it signed the Kyoto Protocol, Canada’s emissions have increased every year for which there is data available.

Green Jobs for China

Lewis Page of the Register reports that international wind-turbine maker Vestas announced it will lay-off 600 employees in the United Kingdom. The day after that decision, the company announced new investments to expand existing Chinese plants, which likely are powered by coal.

Corrections

The article last week entitled “Arctic Ice Recovers” should have been titled “Arctic Ice Recovering.” Also, the graph that best show the Arctic ice increasing since the low in 2007 referred to (here) is from “The Cryosphere Today,” run by the Polar Research Group in the Department of Atmospheric Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →