William Yeatman

In the News

by William Yeatman on April 14, 2009

in Blog

Cap-and-Trade Hurts Little Guy, Aids the Corrupt
William O’ Keefe, U.S. News & World Report, 14 April 2009

The American people have had enough of convoluted, indecipherable financial schemes and the opportunists who exploit them. The public is understandably angry about Wall Street’s exploitation of Main Street, and yet our political leaders are setting the stage for another complex trading market, ripe for corruption. The future Enrons and Bernie Madoffs of the world would like nothing better than to see the U.S. impose a new market for carbon emission trading.

Where’s the Benefit?
Paul Chesser, Spectator, 14 April 2009

Global warming realists (that is, those who don’t buy the Al Gore-like catastrophism because they see the earth is  no warmer than it was 12 years ago) often argue  against various forms of energy taxes, but too many stop short of asking alarmists, “What’s the benefit?”

Cap-and-Trade a Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing
Senator John Ensign, Las Vegas Review-Journal, 13 April 2009

President Barack Obama has been shockingly upfront about his heavy-handed plans to govern energy production across the country from Washington, D.C. His plan is known as cap-and-trade, but it amounts to a new national energy tax that will be detrimental to consumers’ pocketbooks at the worst possible time.

Announcements

The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) has launched a new global warming website, Climate Depot, run by Marc Morano, former communications director for the Republicans on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. To visit the site, click here.

In the News

Dissenter on Warming Expands His Campaign
Leslie Kaufman, New York Times, 10 April 2009

Climate Bill Could Trigger Lawsuit Landslide
Tom Lobianco, Washington Times, 10 April 2009

A Dangerous New Global Warming Law
Alan Caruba, Warning Signs, 10 April 2009

The U.N.’s Global Green Raw Deal
Patrick Michaels, Planet Gore, 9 April 2009

Waxman-Markey Litigation Shell Game
Marlo Lewis, OpenMarket.org, 9 April 2009

Alarmists Get Their Wish
Paul Chesser, GlobalWarming.org, 9 April 2009

Wind Power Is a Complete Disaster
Michael J. Trebilcock, Financial Post, 8 April 2009

Can Renewables Meet America’s Energy Needs?
Mary Hutzler, MasterResource.org, 7 April 2009

Outrageous: Waxman-Markey’s Energy Tax
Amy Ridenour, National Center for Public Policy Research, 6 April 2009

Obama Proposes Cap Growth
Donald Lambro, Washington Times, 6 April 2009

News You Can Use

Wind Power Is Not the Answer

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar this week in New Jersey said that windmills off the East Coast could generate enough electricity to replace all the coal-fired power in the United States. In response, Thomas Pyle, president of the Institute for Energy Research, told the D.C. Examiner that, “Secretary Salazar is living in Fantasy Land.” According to Pyle, “We would need to install 309,587 giant turbines – about 172 turbines per mile of coast – and hope the wind blows 24 hours a day, seven days a week.”

Inside the Beltway

Myron Ebell

New Study Shows Costs of Canada’s Climate Plans

I was in Toronto, Kingston, and Ottawa this week to enjoy the snow. The way the climate is warming so rapidly it might be the last snow we see for quite awhile-maybe not until December. While I was there, the Ontario Conservative Party released a study that estimates that electric bills will increase by up to $780 per household if the Liberal Party government’s Green Energy Act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is passed by the Ontario Parliament. Energy Minister George Smitherman immediately disputed the study’s findings.  He said that electric bills would go up only one percent per year because the higher rates would create a “culture of conservation.”  It’s nice to see that Canadians can be just as loopy as Californians.

It’s Too Late for Obama To Hedge on Climate

Here in Washington, White House Science Adviser John P. Holdren gave interesting interviews to Juliet Eilperin of the Washington Post and to Seth Borenstein of the Associated Press. He confirmed to Eilperin something that President Barack Obama seemed to say several weeks ago. The Administration would be open to a cap-and-trade bill, such as the Waxman-Markey draft (which I wrote about last week), that gives away some of the ration coupons to emitting industries. Obama favors auctioning 100% of the coupons, but clearly he and his top advisers recognize that the only way to gain the support of big business special interests is to give them some of the coupons they need to stay in business.

The problem is that the Administration and many Members of Congress have already made plans for spending all the revenue that would be raised by auctioning the coupons.  It may be solved if the revenues generated are much higher in the first eight years of a cap-and-trade regime than the $646 billion estimate in President Obama’s budget submission to Congress. A White House official, Jason Furman, was quoted as saying that they thought the revenues could be two to three times their estimate, or $1.3 to 1.9 trillion. That sounds like enough money to pay off big business and vastly increase federal spending at the same time. However, if the economy remains weak, which it may well do given the policies being pursued by the Congress and the Administration, then there may be a glut of coupons and the auction price may be low.  Cap-and-trade will siphon a lot of money out of the economy while at the same time putting a governor on the economy limiting the upper end of growth to perhaps one or two percent per year. As people’s incomes stagnate and decline, federal revenues are going to drop off a cliff without major tax increases.

Dr. Doom

Dr. Holdren told Borenstein that the Administration was actively considering geo-engineering solutions to stop global warming because the situation is so desperate. It’s relevant here to remember that the first time anyone said we had only ten years left to begin reducing emissions was about seven years ago. Geo-engineering is of course anathema to most global warming alarmists. For them, the only way to save us is to cripple the economy. Therefore, it was no surprise that environmental pressure groups came out swinging against Holdren’s comments. Holdren then quickly sent around an e-mail saying that his remarks had been taken out of context. I mention this story because the idea that Dr. Holdren could be put in charge of engineering the perfect climate is the most frightening thing I’ve heard for many years. Michael Crichton, may he rest in peace, could have written his scariest novel based closely on the real-life ravings of John P. Holdren.

Around the World

Bonn Conference Ends in Failure

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) conference in Bonn ended this week. It was the latest round of negotiations to pave the way for the fifteenth Conference of the Parties this December in Copenhagen, where member nations have pledged to conclude negotiations on a successor agreement to the failed Kyoto Protocol, which expires at the end of 2012.

There was no progress on the most important issue-legally binding emissions cuts. The head of the UNFCCC, Yvo de Boer, said that the numbers discussed for emissions targets for industrialized countries were “well short” of the 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020 proposed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The U.S. delegation spent most of the Bonn talks trying to dampen expectations. European member countries bemoaned the lack of “leadership,” an implicit attack on American inaction. And developing countries continued to reject emissions targets of any kind, while at the same time demanding hundreds of billions of dollars to pay for clean energy technologies and adaptation. Environmentalists were sorely disappointed.

Predictably, the only thing the negotiators agreed upon was the need for more negotiations on top of those already scheduled for Bonn in June and Bangkok in October. They agreed to meet in Bonn again in August, and at an undisclosed location in November, presumably somewhere tropical. These jet-setting diplomats have a tough job-endless, inconclusive meetings at five-star resorts all over the world.

In the News

by William Yeatman on April 9, 2009

Obama’s Science Adviser Hints on Cap-and-Trade Compromise
Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post, 9 April 2009

The Obama administration might agree to auction only a portion of the emissions allowances granted at first under a cap-and-trade system to limit greenhouse gas pollution, White House science adviser John P. Holdren said yesterday, a move that would please electric utilities and manufacturers but could anger environmentalists.

Instead of Drilling, Obama Tilts at Green Windmills
DC Examiner, 9 April 2009

Weaning the U.S. off imported oil by drilling for known reserves off our coasts and under federal lands is a no-cost economic stimulus that would create 160,000 high-paying jobs and generate $1.7 trillion in new tax revenue and royalties. Tapping this resource would stop the flow of U.S. dollars to Middle Eastern sheikdoms, Hugo Chavez’s Venezuelan madhouse, and other OPEC outposts of petroleum-fueled global lunacy. But even though a large majority of Americans favor expanding domestic oil and gas production, President Obama’s administration is literally tilting at windmills instead.

U.S. Plays Down Hope for Climate Treaty
Gerard Wynn, Reuters, 8 April 2009

U.S. negotiators tried to dampen expectations on Wednesday of rapid progress on climate change after President Barack Obama vowed new U.S. leadership, on the closing day of U.N. talks in Bonn.

Yesterday DeSmogBlog added 7 more entries to its Global Warming Denier Database, which is touted as “an extensive database of individuals involved in the global warming denial industry.”

I took a look at the Database, and I am outraged. Why I am I not on the list!!??

Not only am I an unabashed global warming denier*, I personally contribute almost as much carbon dioxide to the atmosphere as mega-emitter Al Gore, alarmist hypocrite.

I understand that I might be too small a fish to warrant entry onto the list. After all, I am a lowly policy analyst. That said, the author of the Global Warming Denier Database, Kevin Grandia, lists “event planning” as an area of expertise, and I’ve been a caterer, so perhaps I am suitably qualified.

In any case, if you are reading this, please contact DeSmogBlog (here) and demand that I, William Yeatman, join the list of global warming deniers.

* It hasn’t warmed in 7 years. Al Gore says that “there is one relationship that is more powerful than all the others and it is this: When there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer.” Well, emissions keep going up, yet temperatures stay the same. Where’s the warming?

Announcements

  • You can now receive tweets on the global warming battle by following cooler_heads on Twitter! You’ll receive links to new blog posts on globalwarming.org and thoughts and links from CEI’s global warming team experts.
  • The George C. Marshall Institute has released two new studies on the Economic, Environmental, and Energy Security Consequences of a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard.

In the News

Video: Marc Morano debating Joe Romm on RollCallTV
Part 1
: Starts at 3:45 min.
Part 2
: Starts immediately

Congress Balks at Obama’s Cap and Trade Proposal
Wall Street Journal, 3 April 2009

Technology is the Answer to Climate Change
Representative F. James Sensenbrenner, Wall Street Journal, 3 April 2009

Embracing Trendy Green Policies did not Help the British Tories
Iain Murray and Matthew Sinclair, National Review Online, 1 April 2009

Wall Street Sees “Bucks to be Made” in House Climate Plan
Nathanial Gronewald, New York Times, 2 April 2009

Enviro Group Sues Obama Administration Over New CAFE Standards
Business Week, 2 April 2009

Is Our President a “Carbon Communist”?
Chris Horner, Human Events, 1 April 2009

We’re Experiencing a Very Deep Solar Minimum
NASA, Science.NASA.gov, 1 April 2009

Climate Change Scepticism is Going Mainstream
Chris Ayres, TimesOnline, 1 April 2009

The Obama Administration Risks a Cap and Trade War
Wall Street Journal, 30 March 2009

News You Can Use

We listed the New York Times Sunday Magazine’s March 29 cover story on Freeman Dyson in last week’s news stories, but we want to mention it again.  Nicholas Dawidoff’s fascinating profile of the great physicist focuses on the fact that Dyson is a “Global-Warming Heretic” even though his political views are orthodox left.  The alarmist community is not pleased.

Inside the Beltway

Myron Ebell

Waxman and Markey Roll Out Monstrosity

The House Energy and Commerce Committee this week released a draft of the energy-rationing bill that Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Beverly Hills) and Energy and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Edward Markey (D-Mass.) plan to mark up in May. The official summary of the bill can be found here and the text of the draft bill here.  A summary analysis by the Heritage Foundation can be found here. The centerpiece of the 648-page bill is a cap-and-trade program, but it contains many other provisions designed to constrict energy supplies and raise prices.

These include: a renewable mandate for electric utilities; funding for carbon capture and storage technology research and a performance standard for new coal-fired power plants; a low carbon transportation fuel standard; new emissions standards for trains, ships, and heavy equipment; developing a smart grid that can control your thermostat; and new energy efficiency standards for buildings, appliances, utilities, industries, and government facilities. All this is quite surprising.  A cap-and-trade program works best if there aren’t a lot of other overlapping programs. Adding all these new programs means that emission reductions achieved by cap-and-trade would come at a much higher cost. It also implies that Representatives Waxman and Markey don’t have much faith in cap-and-trade, which suggests that they have been paying attention to the failing European Union’s Emissions Trading Scheme.

Also of note is a requirement that utilities “must demonstrate that its customers have achieved a required level of cumulative electricity or natural gas savings relative to business-as-usual projections.”  It sounds like the bill would do for the family home what the Obama Administration has done to General Motors.

Instead of pre-empting California ‘s emission standards for new vehicles, Waxman and Markey would direct the executive branch to negotiate to try to harmonize federal and conflicting state auto fuel economy programs. However, the draft bill does pre-empt the Environmental Protection Agency from using the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. That is a notable recognition that doing so would create a regulatory nightmare.

The cap-and-trade provisions are peculiar and complicated and will require much closer study than I have given them.  The baseline year is 2005, and the targets for emissions reductions are -3% by 2012, -20% by 2020, -42% by 2030, and -83% by 2050.  It appears that the initial reductions could be met through the current economic downturn and by buying a few carbon offsets rather than by making emissions reductions.  Indeed, the carbon offset provisions are remarkably generous.  The cap-and-trade title would also create a huge “strategic reserve” of rationing coupons that could be sold “in case prices rise faster than expected.”  The draft bill does not say how many of the rationing coupons would be given away for free and how many would be auctioned.  That decision will apparently be made later after the various special interests have a chance to threaten and plead.

Waxman and Markey also include provisions to create a trade war and destroy the World Trade Organization. They call it “ensuring domestic competitiveness.”  Similar provisions to “assist” consumers with higher energy bills were left blank and are to be filled in later.

The most astonishing thing in the Waxman-Markey draft is that they state openly that the cap-and-trade provisions “are modeled closely on the recommendations of the U. S. Climate Action Partnership.”  That is to say, the powerful big business special interests that are to be regulated got to write their own regulations. I wonder who will benefit from that, consumers or the big companies that belong to US CAP?  I seem to recall that Chairman Waxman has criticized and even investigated Republicans who introduced bills that were written by outside special interests. That was different, I guess. The second most astonishing thing is how little attention the mainstream media and environmental pressure groups have given to this fact that the regulated are being allowed to write the regulations.

Senate Budget Resolution Includes Good Intentions

Senators passed their version of the budget resolution by a 55-43 margin on Thursday. Several amendments related to the President’s budget proposal to raise $646 billion in federal revenues from a cap-and-trade program were voted and adopted.  The Senate agreed on a 67 to 31 vote to an amendment offered by Senators Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) and Robert Byrd (D-WV) that says that cap-and-trade should not be included in budget reconciliation legislation.  Reconciliation bills cannot be filibustered and so require only a simple majority to pass.

Senator Barbara Boxer’s (D-Calif.) amendment that states that revenues derived from selling rationing coupons under cap-and-trade should be used to help people pay their higher energy bills was passed by a 54 to 43 vote.  But then the Senate passed a competing amendment from Senator John Thune (R-SD) by an 89 to 8 margin.  It states that any energy-rationing legislation passed should not raise energy or gasoline prices. And by a 54 to 44 vote, Senators agreed to an amendment offered by Senator Christopher Bond (R-Mo.) that urges that any climate legislation passed does not cause significant job losses.

Some people are claiming that passing the Thune amendment means that cap-and-trade is dead in the Senate because cap-and-trade would only work if it raised energy prices. But all these votes are hortatory and non-binding on future Senate votes.  The unavoidable reality is that the colossal revenues that can be generated by auctioning cap-and-trade rationing coupons are an irresistible prospect for many in Congress. Senator Benjamin Cardin (D-Md.) told the Washington Post that cap-and-trade was “the most significant revenue-generating proposal of our time” (you can almost hear his lips smacking). Or as I have been putting it, “the biggest tax increase in history.” So a House-Senate conference committee on the budget could still decide to use budget reconciliation to sneak cap-and-trade through the Senate.

Around the World

Though the G-20 countries decided on a $1.1 trillion package, no agreements were made in regard to climate change. Greenpeace executive director John Sauven’s angst is noted: “Tacking climate change on to the end of the communique (two short paragraphs) as an afterthought does not demonstrate anything like the seriousness we needed to see. Hundreds of billions were found for the IMF and World Bank, but for making the transition to a green economy there is no money on the table, just vague aspirations, talks about talks and agreements to agree.” (parenthetical added)

China now calls for developed countries to give a full 1 percent of their GDPs to developing nations to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

In April, the President will host a Major Economies Meeting to lay the groundwork for an international agreement at Copenhagen later this year. This is the new name for the process set up by President George W. Bush, which he called the Major Emitters Meeting.

In the States

California

The California Senate voted this week to increase the state’s renewable power mandate to from 20% to 33% of total load by 2020. However Sen. John Benoit ( R-Palm Desert ) said the increased mandate for solar, wind and geothermal power will not only hurt residents who are already having trouble paying their bills, but will also drive manufacturing firms out of the state. “We are going to make ourselves the greenest Third World economy in the world,” he said.

Tennessee

Last Saturday while climate realists were celebrating Human Achievement Hour, some climate alarmists were refraining from using energy for Earth Hour. But not all. Although Al Gore turned off most of his lights, the blue hue from the use of televisions or computers and brightly-lit trees in his garden evidenced his Do As I Say mentality.

Representatives Henry Waxman (D-California) and Edward Markey (D-Massachusetts) today unveiled the Clean Energy and Security Act, a massive bill that incorporates virtually every lame-brained global warming policy ever considered by Congress (and then some).

To read the bill, click here.

To read the executive summary, click here.

To read CEI’s reaction to the bill, click here.

The mainstream media is in thrall to global warming alarmism because doom sells print. Rather than run a story about steady global temperatures over the last decade, an editor is much more likely to go with an article about how global warming would harm polar bears (if it ever starts warming).

The Cato Institute has a novel solution to the media’s doomsday bias. It took out a full-page advertisement in major papers across the country, to fight global warming alarmism.

To see the ad, click here.

Suffice to say, 100 respected scientists “maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated.”

I applaud the Cato Institute for combating climate alarmism, and I hope the ad makes people think twice. But I also bemoan the state of the media when an advertisement is the news most fit to print.

In the News

by William Yeatman on March 30, 2009

Cap-and-Trade War
Wall Street Journal, 30 March 2009

One of President Obama’s applause lines is that his climate tax policies will create new green jobs “that can’t be outsourced.” But if that’s true, why is his main energy adviser floating a new carbon tariff on imports? Welcome to the coming cap and trade war.

Bustin’ a Cap-and-Trade
Paul Chesser, Spectator, 30 March 2009

The increasing atmospheric CO2 has overwhelmed the environmentalists. It’s made them fizzy. And they can’t claim that any new, associated heat has made them delusional, because  it ain’t happenin’.

Obama’s China Syndrome
Iain Murray, DC Examiner Opinion Zone, 27 March 2009

It is looking less and less likely that President Obama will be able to institute his vaunted cap-and-trade scheme for greenhouse gas reduction through the back door of the budget reconciliation process.  This places him in a very awkward situation internationally in the run-up to the Copenhagen conference on emissions reduction in December.  Moreover, it forces him to confront face-to-face the biggest problem in any attempt to reduce greenhouse gases worldwide: China.

Announcement

  • JunkScience.com editor Steven Milloy has a provocative new book, Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Control Your Life and What You Can Do to Stop Them. To read a review of the book by Marc Morano, click here. To purchase the book, click here.
  • The U.S. Chamber of Commerce unveiled Project No Project, a great new web site that chronicles how NIMBY (“not in my backyard”) activists “block energy projects by organizing local opposition, changing zoning laws, opposing permits, filing lawsuits, and bleeding projects dry of their financing.” For commentary on the new site from CEI’s Marlo Lewis, click here.
  • CEI’s Michelle Minton has organized Human Achievement Hour for Saturday, March 28th, from 8:30 to 9:30 PM. This coincides with Earth Hour, which calls on people to turn out the lights for an hour in symbolic protest against human energy consumption. Human Achievement Hour encourages hospitals, airlines, fire stations, and other essential services to keep the lights on.
  • The John Locke Foundation, an independent, non profit public policy think tank in North Carolina, has joined the Cooler Heads Coalition.

In the News

The Civil Heretic
Nicholas Dawidoff, New York Times Magazine, 25 March 2009

Economic Downturn Makes Climate Legislation Unlikely
Ben Lieberman, ThePolitic.org, 27 March 2009

UN Climate Plan Would Redistribute $ Trillions
George Russell, FoxNews.com, 27 March 2009

Turn Them On! Turn Them All On!
Meghan Cox Gurdon, San Francisco Examiner, 26 March 2009

Obama To Avoid Agreement at Copenhagen
Patrick Wintour, The Guardian, 26 March 2009

Economy vs. Environment
David Owen, The New Yorker, 26 March 2009

The Energy Strangulation Policy
Kenneth P Green, MasterResource.org, 26 March 2009

The Anti-Industrial Coup
Robert Tracinski, RealClearPolitics.com, 26 March 2009

$2 Trillion: Hidden Cost of Obama’s Cap-and-Trade Scheme
Hans Bader, OpenMarket.org, 24 March 2009

War Over Carbon Trade War?
Iain Murray, NRO Corner, 26 March 2009

New Nano Car Thrills a Billion Potential Drivers in India
Hormazd Sorabjee, Forbes.com, 25 March 2009

Flashback: IPCC Heads Calls Nano Car a “Nightmare”
Gavin Rabinowitz, USA Today, 10 January 2008

A Cap-and-Trade Calamity?
William Galston, The New Republic, 23 March 2009

The Oceans Are Cooling
Jennifer Morahasy, JenniferMarohasy.com, 21 March 2009

News You Can Use

Gallup Poll: Global Warming Ranks Last among Environmental Worries

Global warming is the environmental issue of least concern to Americans, according to a Gallup public opinion poll released this week. Respondents were asked about their level of worry of 8 environmental issues, and global warming placed 8th. Clean drinking water was their first concern.

More News You Can Use

Moody’s: Cap-and-Trade Would Raise Energy Prices 30%

Reuters reports that U.S. electricity prices are likely to rise 15 to 30 percent if a national cap on carbon dioxide emissions is instituted, according to a report by Moody’s Investors Service.

Inside the Beltway

Myron Ebell

Climate Alarmists Confirmed for Top Science Posts

The Senate last week on a voice vote confirmed the nominations of Dr. John P. Holdren to be White House Science Adviser and Dr. Jane Lubchenko to be administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Obama’s False Choice

President Barack Obama made an astonishing statement at his televised press conference on Tuesday night. He said, “We can remain the world’s leading importer of foreign oil, or we can become the world’s leading exporter of renewable energy.” There are at least two problems with that choice. The first is that we use the oil we import to run America’s cars, trucks, buses, trains, jets, and ships. America couldn’t run without it. Second, there is no export market for renewable fuels because no one will buy them (unless required to by their repressive governments-and those repressive governments almost always require such fuels to be domestically produced) because they are far more expensive than petroleum-based fuels. I have said that it is a question whether President Obama is going to model himself on Tony Blair or Juan Peron. He’s looking more and more like Peron.  If he wants to reduce oil imports, then why is his Administration actively moving to block increased domestic oil production on federal lands and offshore areas?

Back Door Cap-and-Trade Unlikely

The House and Senate are ready to vote on their FY 2010 budget resolutions next week.  It looks increasingly unlikely that they will use the budget reconciliation process to enact cap-and-trade legislation. The budget reconciliation bill cannot be filibustered and so only requires a bare majority to pass rather than the three-fifths’ super-majority needed to invoke cloture for most controversial bills in the Senate. That’s why it’s a tempting way to try to pass cap-and-trade. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) kept open the possibility in remarks this week, but on Friday the senior Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee sent a long letter to the White House urging the President to support moving cap-and-trade legislation through the normal legislative process. This is on top of the letter from thirty-some Senators arguing against using reconciliation.

Obama Wages War on Real Jobs

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson intervened this week to delay the issuing of over 150 permits by the Army Cops of Engineers for surface coal (sometimes called mountaintop removal) mining projects in Appalachia. A federal appeals court panel last month overturned a lower court ruling that would have required the Corps to do more extensive environmental reviews. That cleared the way for the Corps to start issuing the permits. Now, EPA is going to use the Clean Water Act to delay these new mines indefinitely.

The decision is in line with President Obama’s anti-coal statements in the campaign.  But it would seem to conflict with what he said about getting the economy moving again and creating new jobs. Choking off America’s coal supply is not only going to cost coal miners their jobs.  It’s also going to threaten people whose jobs depend on low-cost electricity. But perhaps President Obama is more interested in killing the coal industry than he is in economic prosperity. I also sense that he thinks a fifteen-dollar an hour job to install compact fluorescent light bulbs created by a taxpayer-funded federal program is better than a sixty dollar an hour coal-mining job.

The True Costs of Energy Rationing

Many congressional hearings drag on for hours and hours without anyone ever saying anything of interest, but they still remain valuable because occasionally a Member of Congress who is paying attention asks some clever questions and the witness actually answers them without equivocation and qualification. The House Ways and Means Committee held a hearing on Thursday on the subject of how to deal with price volatility in a cap-and-trade regime (that is, the tendency for the price of rationing coupons to fluctuate wildly). Ranking Republican Dave Camp (R-Mich.) asked the Director of the Congressional Budget Office Douglas Elmendorf about the costs of cap-and-trade.  Elmendorf replied that cap-and-trade was an indirect tax on consumers that would work by raising energy prices and, further, that it was unlikely there were any goods and services that would not increase in price as a result of raising energy prices. Dr. Elmendorf also said that an indirect tax such as cap-and-trade would depress incomes and therefore that receipts from other taxes would decline. He said that CBO estimated that for every dollar in revenues raised by selling rationing coupons under a cap-and-trade scheme, other federal revenues would go down by 25%.

Around the World

New Spanish Study Show Folly of Green Job Subsidies

Chris Horner, Planet Gore

A new study from the King Juan Carlos University in Madrid demonstrates the economic harm inflicted by subsidies to create green jobs.

Here are some highlights (largely in my words):

Based upon the Spanish experience, if President Barack Obama succeeded in his (oddly floating) promise to further intervene in the economy to create 3 million to 5 million “green jobs”, the U.S. should expect to eliminate at least 6.6 million to 11 million jobs elsewhere in the economy.

That is because green jobs schemes in Spain killed 2.2 jobs per job created, which, the study shows, become wards of the state dependent on continuation of the mandates and subsidies to continue, subject to the ritual boom and bust of artifically concocted jobs (read: ethanol).

The study calculates that since 2000 Spain spent $760,00  to create each “green job”, including subsidies of more than 1.33 million per wind industry job. Each “green” megawatt installed destroys 5.39 jobs on average elsewhere in the economy: 8.99 by photovoltaics, 4.32 by wind energy, 5.84 by mini-hydro.

The Science

Global Warming-Malaria Link Is Hot Air

Speculations on the impacts of climate change often focus on malaria and other mosquito-borne diseases. Alarmists say there will be hundreds of millions more cases in the tropics, and the diseases will move north to North America and Europe. In a recent article, Professor Paul Reiter of the prestigious Pasteur Institute makes it clear that these predictions are made with little or no understanding of how complex this subject is.

He quotes 30 articles written by activists and then proceeds, with scientific logic but no hype, to demolish them. He acknowledges that temperature plays a role in transmission, but makes it perfectly clear that obsession with global warming is wrong. Ecology and behavior are the dominant factors. In his opinion, we should be spending our money on preventing people getting sick instead of worrying about the weather.

The article is published in the peer-reviewed journal, Malaria Journal, and can be downloaded by clicking here.

In the News

by William Yeatman on March 26, 2009

in Blog

Turn ‘Em on! Turn ‘Em All On!
Meghan Cox Gurdon, San Francisco Examiner, 26 March 2009

In a press release, CEI cheerfully applauded organizations such as the Kennedy Center, Wal-Mart, Target and the United States Marine Corps for keeping the lights on (and, in the case of the Marines, for continuing “combat and humanitarian operations around the world”) throughout Saturday night.

Obama To Delay Signing Agreement at Copenhagen?
Patrick Wintour, The Guardian, 26 March 2009

Barack Obama may be forced to delay signing up to a new international agreement on climate change in Copenhagen at the end of the year because of the scale of opposition in the US Congress, it emerged today.

Economy vs Environment
David Owen, New Yorker, 30 March 2009

So far, the most effective way for a Kyoto signatory to cut its carbon output has been to suffer a well-timed industrial implosion, as Russia did after the collapse of the Soviet Union, in 1991.

New Poll: Global Warming Last on Americans List of Green Concerns
Lydia Saad, Gallup, 25 March 2009

The folks behind World Water Day — a largely U.N.-sponsored effort to focus attention on freshwater resource management, observed this past Sunday — may be on to something. Pollution of drinking water is Americans’ No. 1 environmental concern, with 59% saying they worry “a great deal” about the issue. That exceeds the 45% worried about air pollution, the 42% worried about the loss of tropical rain forests, and lower levels worried about extinction of species and global warming.

A Cap-and-Trade Calamity?
William Galston, The New Republic, 23 March 2009

It is gradually dawning on Washington that cap-and-trade legislation won’t pass anytime soon–certainly not this year, and probably not next year either. One reason is public opinion: a Gallup survey released last week revealed that “for the first time in Gallup’s 25-year history of asking Americans about the trade-off between environmental protection and economic growth, a majority of Americans say economic growth should be given the priority, even if the environment suffers to some extent.” Just four years ago, protecting the environment enjoyed a 17-point edge; today, the advantage goes to the economy, 51-42.