One of the mysteries of the universe is why President Bush bothers to charge the fixed bayonets of the global warming theocracy. On the other hand, his Administration's supposed "cowboy diplomacy" is succeeding in changing the way the world addresses climate change. Which is to say, he has forced the world to pay at least some attention to reality.
William Yeatman
Imagine that former Republican Gov. Bill Graves created and appointed members of an "objective" commission to study school choice, but the panel would be managed by a conservative-funded, limited-government nonprofit organization from out of state that disavowed its advocacy origins on the issue.
The G8 summit on climate policy, and its categorical rejection by China, India and the other Group of Five developing countries has reinforced the post-Kyoto standoff. Rather than breaking the climate deadlock, as Tony Blair had advocated in the run-up to the Hokkaido summit, the G8 agreement has deepened the existing gulf within the international community with no sign in sight of a possible solution.
For a perfect example of what is meant by "gesture politics" – an empty pledge given solely for effect, which the politician has no hope of honouring – one could not do better than this week's commitment by the G8 leaders on how they want us to fight climate change.
Cap-and-Trade “Minimizing” [Larry Kudlow]
Yesterday I wrote that the McCain campaign is distancing itself and moving away from cap-and-trade. This is clear from the fact that the senator’s recent speeches do not mention cap-and-trade, and that the 15-page policy pamphlet issued by the campaign also makes no mention of cap-and-trade.
After several responses to my piece shot thru the blogosphere yesterday, Jill Hazelbaker, McCain’s communications director, issued a statement saying that any notion that the senator is abandoning or minimizing his support for cap-and-trade is “totally false.”
Well, as far as abandoning, that’s not what I said. I wrote that a McCain presidency might resurrect cap-and-trade, although it will be a much different format. But the key point is that several campaign advisors told me that the issue now is jobs and the economy, and of course $4 gas at the pump and $140 oil in the world market. Since cap-and-trade would not only establish the biggest government regulatory plan in history, and also would substantially raise gas and other fuel prices, the idea is a loser right now as every opinion-poll survey clearly shows.
Hence, the senator is being smart to move away from cap-and-trade and instead support drill, drill, drill for more energy supplies to reduce gas prices, as well as tax-cut plans to spur economic growth and jobs.
Mr. McCain is also correct to link drill, drill, drill with new energy-related job creation. In my formulation of this, nuclear power and clean coal are part of drill, drill, drill, as are natural gas and even alternative fuels. Last night former-Sen. Phil Gramm, who is ostensibly McCain’s most senior economic advisor, said as much on our program.
So while Ms. Hazelbaker may say that minimizing cap-and-trade support is totally false, she is engaging in a certain degree of cognitive dissonance on this subject. And let me note that the intent of my piece yesterday was to praise Mr. McCain on this topic, not to bury him.
After writing favorably about Sen. McCain’s recent economics speeches, where he clearly shifted toward the supply-side both on tax cuts and producing more energy, I went back last evening and carefully read his 15-page policy pamphlet called “Jobs for America.” Here’s what I found: There is no mention of cap-and-trade. None. Nada. There is a section about “Cheap, Clean, Secure Energy for America: The Lexington Project.” But that talks about expanded domestic production of oil and gas, as well as the need for more nuclear power and coal along with alternative sources. Then it has the $300 million battery and flex-fuel cars. But nope, no cap-and-trade.
So I picked up the phone and dialed a senior McCain official to make sure these old eyes hadn’t missed it. Sure enough, on deep background, this senior McCain advisor told me I was correct: no cap-and-trade. In other words, this central-planning, regulatory, tax-and-spend disaster, which did not appear in Mac’s two recent speeches, has been eradicated entirely — even from the detailed policy document that hardly anybody will ever read.
So then I asked this senior official if the campaign has taken cap-and-trade out behind the barn and shot it dead once and for all — buried it in history’s dustbin of bad ideas. The answer came back that they are interested in jobs right now — jobs for new energy production and jobs from lower taxes. At that point I became satisfied. Even though a McCain presidency might resurrect cap-and-trade, it will be a much different format. More important, the campaign is cognizant of the conservative rebellion against it.
That’s enough for me.
I might add that in this lengthy policy document there’s a strong statement about appreciating the value of the dollar. “John McCain’s policies will increase the value of the dollar and thus reduce the price of oil.”
This is good. It’s not perfect. Neither is McCain’s tax plan and new energy plan. But it is excellent progress. We’ll see if the next batch of polls shows any positive movement on the basis of McCain’s new pro-growth, supply-side approach. I notice today on the Intrade pay-to-play prediction market that McCain is up almost a full percentage point. That’s good, except he’s still way down, 65 to 31. However, the national average on RealClearPolitics shows a tightening to just over 5 percentage points, 48.2 to 43.0.
If Steve Schmidt had anything to do with McCain’s nouveau supply-side economics, good for him.07/09 03:02 PM
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.
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.
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
CEI.org