William Yeatman

In the News

by William Yeatman on March 25, 2009

in Blog

Cap-and-Trade Would Raise Energy Prices 30%
Reuters, 24 March 2009

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.

Senate Spurns Cap-and-Trade
Lisa Lerer, Politico, 25 March 2009

The budget debate on Capitol Hill has exposed deep splits among Democrats over combating climate change, a major priority of President Barack Obama, with moderate lawmakers opposing a bold legislative gambit to pass the administration’s cap-and-trade proposal through the budget reconciliation process.

In the News

by William Yeatman on March 24, 2009

in Blog

Congressional Dems To Shelve Obama’s Energy Rationing Plan
Darren Samualsohn, New York Times, 23 March 2009

Capitol Hill Democrats are expected to bypass the fast-track budget process for global warming legislation but plan to keep the option open later this year if they cannot win bipartisan support on one of President Obama’s signature agenda items.

A Green Clash of Civilizations?
Reuters, 23 March 2009

China’s steel industry should face fees on its exports into the United States if Washington adopts greenhouse gas cuts and Beijing does not, U.S. steel industry officials and advocates said.

Global Warming Is Running out of Hot Air
Phyllis Schlafly, Townhall.com, 24 March 2009

The coldest winter in a decade in many places, with snow in unlikely cities such as New Orleans, has deflated some of the hot air in global warming. And a heavy snowfall that paralyzed Washington, D.C., upstaged a mass demonstration scheduled to promote global warming.

Announcement

  • Click here to see Global Warming Apocalypse? No!, a Congressional staff and media briefing by Lord Christopher Monckton, Chief Policy Advisor, Science and Public Policy Institute.
  • The Heartland Institute has posted videos of the keynote speeches from the second International Conference on Climate Change.

In the News

Obama Budget Will Bring Back $4 Gas
Andrew Moylan, DC Examiner, 20 March 2009

Cap-and-Trade Promises Disaster
R. Emmett Tyrrell, Washington Times, 20 March 2009

Clean Coal Won’t Be Dirt Cheap
Jeffrey Ball, Wall Street Journal, 20 March 2009

How Can Greens Make Themselves Less White?
Naomi Riley, Wall Street Journal, 19 March 2009

Human Sacrifices to Global Warming God
Jay Ambrose, The Daily Sentinel, 19 March 2009

Cap-and-Trade’s Economic Impact
William Yeatman, Council on Foreign Relations, 19 March 2009

Global Warming Ranks Last in Public Concern
Thomas Cheplick, Environment and Climate News, 19 March 2009

CO2 Regulation under the Clean Air Act: Legislative Thuggery
Marlo Lewis, MasterResource.org, 19 March 2009

Exposing Cap-and-Trade Energy Rationing in Obama’s Budget
Senator James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), Senate Floor Speech, 18 March 2009

Climate Hype: Let the Backlash Begin
Iain Murray, DC Examiner Opinion Zone, 17 March 2009

White House Admits Cap-and-Trade Costs Triple Its First Estimate
Phil Kerpen, FoxNews.com, 17 March 2009

Elitist Enviros Hurt Blue Collar Americans
Joel Kotkin, Forbes, 17 March 2009

UK Halts Green Investments
Ashley Seager, Guardian, 16 March 2009

News You Can Use

Attention Congress:

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, according to Gallup’s Frank Newport.

Inside the Beltway

CEI’s Myron Ebell

The True Cost of Cap-Trade-Trade Energy Rationing

Tom LoBianco reported in the Washington Times this week that a top White House official estimates that President Barack Obama’s plan to create a cap-and-trade scheme to ration energy would raise two to three times the estimate in the President’s budget of $646 billion in its first eight years. Jason Furman, the deputy director of the National Economic Council, let the cat out of the bag at a private briefing for Senate staffers last month.

Even in these days of trillion fatigue, nearly two trillion dollars still seems like quite a lot of money. I wonder what the Congress and the Administration will do with all that money? Oh, that’s right, they’re going to give it back to “us.” Well, some of us, anyway.  Somehow, I think it’s going to be hard to convince most people that they will be among the lucky us who get their money back.

A Real Stimulus Package

Senator David Vitter (R-La.) and Representative Rob Bishop (R-Utah) last week introduced the No Cost Stimulus Act of 2009. The bill is numbered S. 570 in the Senate and H. R. 1431 in the House. The bill is really much better than no cost. It would create hundreds of billions of dollars of economic activity and hundreds of thousands of jobs while providing a steady revenue stream into the federal treasury.

The Vitter-Bishop bill would open federal offshore areas and the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas exploration and expedite the procedures for environmental review and preparing leases for competitive auction. The lease sales would produce at a minimum a few billions of dollars. Once production started, royalty payments would start flowing to the Treasury.

The No Cost Stimulus Act would also streamline the permitting of new nuclear plants, encourage leasing on federal lands for oil shale production, limit reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act to 270 days so that NEPA cannot be used to delay projects indefinitely, and prevent the EPA from using the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and prohibit using the Endangered Species Act to regulate emissions. The bill has already attracted a number of co-sponsors in both the House and the Senate. It’s so good that it has no chance of going anywhere as long as the Democrats control the Congress.

Around the World

Energy Chief Threatens Trade War

Fran Smith

Just as the World Bank released a report on increased trade protectionism in the world, U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu came out in favor of using carbon tariffs as a “weapon” against countries that aren’t taking steps to reduce their carbon emissions and as a way to protect U.S. manufacturers.

He seemed not to notice that the day before China’s top climate change official Li Gao had warned that carbon tariffs imposed on developing countries would be a “disaster” and perhaps start a trade war. Chu also doesn’t seem to remember that the European Union likes the idea of carbon tariffs against such countries as-gasp-the U.S.

Read more about the dangers of a carbon tariff: Click here for commentary from CEI’s Marlo Lewis, on how a cap-and-trade scheme is inherently protectionist.

Over at the Center for American Progress, Brad Johnson, my sometimes interlocutor, takes issue with a recent Gallup poll for giving a “false choice between environmental protection and economic growth.” The subject of Johnson’s analysis is a report on the Gallup website that says,

“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”

Mr. Johnson asserts that the Gallup’s poll is flawed because the question is inaccurate. According to Mr. Johnson, there is no trade-off between economic growth and environmental protection. We can have our cake and eat it, too, implies Mr. Johnson, and he cites two studies to prove his point.

His evidence, however, is far from convincing.

He first notes a UC-Berkeley study that claims “California’s Green Policies Have Created 1.5 Million Jobs and Added $45 Billion to The Economy.”

Yet the results of this study have been contested by many knowledgeable sources, among them the Pacific Research Institute’s Tom Tanton, who formerly served on the California Energy Commission, as well as Dr. David Kreutzer, an economist at the Heritage Foundation.

Tanton and Kreutzer are colleagues and friends of CEI, so some readers might mistakenly fault their excellent work on account of the ideological affinities of the organizations for which they work.

But if you are inclined to discount these studies, then you must also discard Mr. Johnson’s second piece of evidence, “A National Green Economy Creates Millions of New Jobs,” which was authored by Greenpeace International.

In any case, the most damning indictment of the UC-Berkeley study is the fact that its author, Professor David Roland-Holst, ran one of the two models used in an analysis commissioned by the California Air Resources Board to measure the economic impact of AB 32, California’s 2006 global warming law. The CARB study concluded that reducing greenhouse gas emissions about 20% by 2020 would increase economic growth in the Golden State. A non-partisan peer-review promptly ripped the study to pieces for being wrong and politically motivated.

Fighting the supposed problem of “global warming” might or might not be a good idea. After all, it hasn’t warmed in almost a decade, despite a steady increase in global greenhouse gas emissions. The much-vaunted “scientific consensus” failed to predict steady global temperatures, and they can’t explain it, either.

So it seems there is some uncertainty on global warming. What is certain, however, is that reducing emissions also reduces economic growth, by making energy more expensive.

by William Yeatman on March 19, 2009

in Blog

Energy Chief Open to a Carbon Trade War
Iain Tally & Tom Barkley, Wall Street Journal, 18 March 2009

Energy Secretary Steven Chu on Tuesday advocated adjusting trade duties as a “weapon” to protect U.S. manufacturing, just a day after one of China’s top climate envoys warned of a trade war if developed countries impose tariffs on carbon-intensive imports.

[N.B. Read commentary on carbon tariffs from CEI’s Fran Smith at www.globalwarming.org]

China Responds to Chu’s Threat of Trade War
Michael Forsythe, Bloomberg, 19 March 2009

China’s top negotiator on climate change said a U.S. proposal to impose duties on imports with countries that don’t try to limit their carbon emissions was “an excuse to impose trade restrictions.”

Climate Hype: Let the Backlash Begin
Iain Murray, DC Examiner Opinion Zone, 17 March 2009

Environmentalists and their allies in the Administration were stunned by the news last week that skepticism about the effects of global warming is growing.  With complete domination of both the mainstream media and the political institutions by true believers in global warming, the news from Gallup that 44 percent of Americans believe that global warming has been exaggerated must have come as a shock.  Yet last week’s news contained two good examples of why this should be, and why the debate that Al Gore claims is over may only just be starting.

White House Admits Cap-and-Trade Costs Triple Their Initial Estimate
Phil Kerpin, Fox News, 17 March 2009

I’ve already explained here on the Forum how the cap-and-trade energy tax works, and would be the biggest tax increase in the history of the country. Now, amazingly, the White House is telling something closer to the truth about this tax hike, admitting that the official budget estimate of $646 billion over 8 years-already a mighty steep price to pay-is far, far lower than the real cost.

In the News

by William Yeatman on March 17, 2009

in Blog

Elitist Enviros Hurt Blue-Collar Americans
Joel Kotkin, Forbes, 17 March 2009

The great Central Valley of California has never been an easy place. Dry and almost uninhabitable by nature, the state’s engineering marvels brought water down from the north and the high Sierra, turning semi-desert into some of the richest farmland in the world.

UK, Running out of $, Halts Green Investments
Ashley Seagen, Guardian, 17 March 2009

The government ran into a storm of criticism yesterday after quietly closing its grant program for solar energy last week, which campaigners said made a mockery of its commitment to build a low-carbon economy.

Senate Democrats Revolt against Obama’s Climate Policies
Andrew Taylor, AP, 16 March 2009

Eight Senate Democrats are opposing speedy action on President Barack Obama’s bill to combat global warming, complicating prospects for the legislation and creating problems for their party’s leaders.

White House Open to Drilling in Alaska?
H Josef Herbert, AP, 16 March 2009

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said Monday he would consider tapping oil from Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge by drilling outside its boundaries if it can be shown that the refuge’s wildlife and environment will remain undisturbed. But Salazar emphasized that the Obama administration stands firm that the Alaska refuge, known as ANWR, “is a very special place” that must be protected and that he is not yet convinced directional drilling would meet that test.

In the News

by William Yeatman on March 12, 2009

in Blog

Why Going Green Means Making Green
Tim Carney, DC Examiner, 12 March 2009

“Big business is increasingly embracing green legislation – and taking advantage of opportunities for big profits for companies with a strong lobbying presence in Washington and in state capitals.”

The Climate Scare Is a Media Driven Scare
Roger Helmer, Conservative Home, 12 March 2009

“I’ve just got back to Strasbourg from the Heartland Institute’s International Climate Conference in New York (Subtitled “Global Warming: was it ever Really a Crisis?”), which brought together around 800 scientists, politicians and commentators from across the USA and around the world, all of a broadly climate-realist disposition.  This was the second Manhattan Climate Conference, and 2009 attracted about double the attendance of the 2008 event.”

America, China Taking Different Paths on Energy
Thomas Pyle, DC Examiner, 12 March 2009

“In spite of the fact that gasoline prices are nearly halved from last summer’s highs, the American people still overwhelmingly support offshore energy exploration and production.”

Senate: Obama’s Climate Policy Dead on Arrival
Walter Alarkon, The Hill, 11 March 2009

“President Obama’s budget doesn’t have enough support from lawmakers to pass, the Senate Budget Committee chairman said Tuesday.”

The Crumbling Case for Global Warming
Peter Foster, National Post, 10 March 2009

“One young radical turned up at the Heartland Institute’s climate change skeptics’ conference in New York this week to declare that he had never witnessed so much hypocrisy. How, he asked the panelists of a session on European policy, could they sleep at night? Clearly puzzled, one of the panelists asked him with which parts of their presentations he disagreed. “Oh,” he said “I didn’t come here to listen to the presentations.”

Announcements

  • Sign up here for the Cato Book Forum on “Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don’t Want You to Know” on Thursday, March 12, 2009 at 12:00 PM (Luncheon to Follow). The Forum features “Climate of Extremes” coauthor Patrick J. Michaels, Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies at the Cato Institute with comments by David Legates, Delaware State Climatologist and Director of the Delaware Environmental Observing System.
  • The Cooler Heads Coalition and the Science and Public Policy Institute will sponsor a briefing by Joanne Nova and David Evans on Friday, 13 March, from noon to 1 PM in 406 Senate Dirksen Office Building. Nova and Evans are prominent global warming skeptics in Australia. RSVP to Julie Walsh at jwalsh@cei.org.
  • The Cooler Heads Coalition and the Science and Public Policy Institute will host a talk by Christopher Monckton (third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley) titled “Global Warming Apocalypse? No!” on Monday, 16 March, in 1334 Longworth House Office Building, from Noon to 1:30 PM.  Lunch will be served.  Rsvp to William Yeatman at wyeatman@cei.org.
  • RSVP here for “An Update on the Science, Economics, and Geopolitics of Global Warming,” featuring Christopher Monckton, Chief Policy Advisor of the Science and Public Policy Institute, and hosted by Ben Lieberman, the Heritage Foundation’s Senior Policy Analyst for Energy and the Environment. The event will be held at noon on Wednesday, March 18th at the Heritage Foundation.

In the News

Climate Change Lobby Has Regrets
Kimberley Strassel, Wall Street Journal, 6 March 2009

Gore Dodges Climate Policy Debate with Lomborg (Again)
Keith Johnson, Environmental Capital, 5 March 2009

Wind: Energy Past, Not Energy Future
Robert Bradley, Master Resource, 4 March 2009

Hansen Belittles Models, Cap-and-Trade; Calls for Coal-Destroying Carbon Tax
Marlo Lewis, Open Market, 3 March 2009

Kyoto’s Failure Means Heat Is on True Believers
Debra Saunders, San Francisco Chronicle, 3 March 2009

Podcast: Deconstructing Alarmism
Patrick Michaels, Cato Daily Podcast, 3 March 2009

Obama’s Cap-and-Trade Scheme Imposes Huge Energy Tax
Chris Horner, Human Events, 2 March 2009

A Tax To Weaken America
Iain Murray, DC Examiner, 2 March 2009

Using the Polar Bear To Impose Costly Measures
Ben Lieberman, Heritage WebMemo, 2 March 2009

The Anti-Green Ecologist
Myron Ebell, Standpoint, 1 March 2009

Congress Abandons Carbon Neutral Effort
David Fahrenthold, Washington Post, 1 March 2009

News You Can Use

Now He Tells Us!

At Junkscience.com, CEI Adjunct Scholar Steven Milloy reports that Senator John Kerry (D-Mass) said “the best” climate regulations would fail to stop “catastrophic and irreversible climate change.” While we can all agree with Mr. Kerry that climate regulations are useless, his alarmism is unfounded. After all, it hasn’t warmed in almost a decade, despite a steady increase in greenhouse gas emissions, and now the Discovery Channel reports that scientists are saying it won’t warm for another 30 years.

Inside The Beltway

CEI’s Myron Ebell

Reid Plans a Two-fer

Darren Samuelsohn and Ben Geman reported today in Environment and Energy Daily (subscription req.) that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) confirmed in an interview that he planned to wrap cap-and-trade legislation into a larger anti-energy bill and try to bring it to the floor before the end of the year. The larger bill would include, most notably, a renewable portfolio standard for electric utilities. Reid had said several times in the past few weeks that cap-and-trade and other anti-energy provisions would be brought to the floor in three separate bills. His reversal puts the Senate on the same track as the House, where Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, has convinced Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to put all the energy-rationing legislation produced by the several committees of jurisdiction into one big bill. There are differing views of what this means for the prospects for enacting cap-and-trade. My own view is that cap-and-trade is sinking fast and that putting it into a larger bill might make it slightly easier to pass.

Failed Advice

A team of prominent European promoters of energy rationing and global warming alarmism came to Washington this week to speak at a conference on Capitol Hill, give briefings to members of Congress, and meet with Obama Administration officials. They included Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Yvo de Boer, the head of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, and Edward Miliband, the UK’s climate minister. No doubt they explained how well the European Union is doing reducing its emissions while maintaining economic growth. The current economic downturn is already so severe that emissions probably are falling rapidly, which means that many EU countries now have a chance of meeting their Kyoto targets. As I told the Washington Post, the only thing that’s been demonstrated to reduce emissions is economic collapse.

Showdown at the Capitol Power Plant

Capitol Climate Action held a “massive” anti-coal protest in front of the Capitol power plant on Monday. Six to seven hundred people, most of them university students, marched down the street and shouted while the snow fell. The Capitol Police were out in force, and the organizers’ intention to provoke them into arresting the demonstrators was not realized. About thirty of us gathered on the sidewalk right next to the Greenpeace truck and trailer (yes, sad to say, but Greenpeace prefers motorized vehicles to bullock carts) for a counter-demo to Celebrate Coal and Keep Energy Affordable! The Greenpeace truck had a big solar panel, but it was covered with three or four inches of snow, so they had to run a generator instead to power the PA system.

A number of groups belonging to the Cooler Heads Coalition besides CEI were represented at Celebrate Coal!, including the National Center for Public Policy Research, Freedom Works, and Americans for Prosperity. Also attending were Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer, the Irish film makers whose new documentary about global warming, Not Evil Just Wrong, will premiere in the next month or two.  In terms of comparing our per capita carbon footprints, most of the Capitol Climate Action protesters were university students who flew to Washington for the protest and also to attend the Power Shift 2009 conference last weekend. Most of us took the subway and a few walked to our Celebrate Coal! rally.

Unfortunately, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) wrote a letter to the anti-coal zealots last Friday announcing that they would direct the Capitol power plant to switch over to run entirely on natural gas. This will increase the cost of the electricity and heat used by the Congress substantially, but I guess the only people who might care about that are taxpayers.

Around the World

Obama “Climate Envoy”: Bush’s Climate Approach Is Too Ambitious

CEI’s Chris Horner, Planet Gore

According to the Wall Street Journal, Obama “climate envoy” Todd Stern “said the road map of greenhouse-gas emission reductions laid out at a 2007 summit in Bali was simply too ambitious. ‘We need to be very mindful of what the dictates of science are, and of the art of the possible,’ he said. The Bali targets – a 25% to 40% cut by industrialized nations by 2020 – were simply too ambitious. ‘It’s not possible to get that kind of number. It’s not going to happen’.”

“Bali” would be the “Bali roadmap” that the Bush administration agreed to as a parting shot. Was this merely some cheeky move by Bush to leave his successor with a pickle?

No. It’s a double standard. The first confirmation of this was found within weeks of the election, when UN officials said that of course Obama wouldn’t be held to the standard to which Team Global Governance had–sometimes with extreme nastiness–held the Bush administration for eight years: you must sign on to a global warming treaty now or the world will end and you killed it . . . and, well, you know the rest, if you weren’t living on an island somewhere, enjoying a nice warm climate during the Bush-era global cooling….

Click here to read the rest of Horner’s piece at Planet Gore

Across the States

Arizona

Arizona State Representative Andy Biggs (R) this week introduced a bill to remove Arizona from the Western Climate Initiative, a regional cap-and-trade energy rationing scheme. Seven states and four Canadian provinces have agreed to participate in the WCI, but Rep. Biggs wants Arizona to withdraw because it would increase energy prices for consumers. According to a study by the Western Business Roundtable, the WCI would cost the average family $2,300/year by 2020. Governor Jan Brewer (R) has since said that Arizona will continue to participate and that the legislature must approve the State’s participation in a cap-and-trade.

California

California State Senator Bob Dutton (R) this week introduced a bill that would delay implementation of AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act. AB 32 mandates a 20% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2020. Like all greenhouse gas reduction policies, however, it is designed to raise the price of energy, and Senator Dutton argues that expensive energy policies are unwarranted at a time when the state’s unemployment rate is above 10%.

Maryland

The Maryland State Senate passed Governor Martin O’ Malley’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act this week. The bill mandates steep greenhouse gas reductions that would result in a net economic benefit for the State’s economy. Of course, that’s impossible, because the “solution” to climate change is expensive energy, which is a job killer.

A month ago, I coined the term “envoy of disappointment” to described Todd Stern, who had been chosen to become the State Department’s roving ambassador on climate change, a new position created by the Obama administration. The label reflected the reality that the U.S. will remain unwilling to put its economy at a competitive disadvantage by signing an international treaty to fight the supposed threat of climate change*, no matter what kind of “hope” and “change” Obama brings to Washington.

Recent evidence suggests I was right.

Obama is a scant 5 weeks into his Presidency, and already the backtracking on climate change has begun. According to Russel Gold at the Wall Street Journal’s Environmental Capital,

Mr. Stern said the road map of greenhouse-gas emission reductions laid out at a 2007 summit in Bali was simply too ambitious. “We need to be very mindful of what the dictates of science are, and of the art of the possible,” he said. The Bali targets – a 25% to 40% cut by industrialized nations by 2020 – were simply too ambitious. “It’s not possible to get that kind of number. It’s not going to happen,” he said.

*It hasn’t warmed in 7 years. Al Gore, hypocrite alarmist, 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, Al?

Why Alarmism?

by William Yeatman on March 3, 2009

in Blog

When it comes to global warming, dire predictions seem to be all we see or hear. But is the alarmism justified?

In today’s Cato Daily Podcast, climatologists Patrick Michaels explains why the news and information we receive about global warming have become so apocalyptic. According to Michaels, a Cato senior fellow in environmental studies, science itself has become increasingly biased, with warnings of extreme consequences from global warming becoming the norm. That bias is then communicated through the media, who focus on only extreme predictions.

Click here to listen to this insightful commentary. It is likely to change the way you perceive the media’s portrayal of global warming.