Features

The President’s Wacky Oil Plan, Part 2

by William Yeatman on April 29, 2011

in Blog, Features

Post image for The President’s Wacky Oil Plan, Part 2

I’ve written before about Obama’s tortuous logic when it comes to rising gas prices, and, this week, he again laid out “solutions” that don’t make any sense. Consider,

  • Yesterday, the President implored Saudi Arabia to produce more oil. That is, he told the Saudis to “drill, baby, drill.” He did the same thing a month ago in Brazil. Meanwhile, U.S. production remains stunted by the Obama administration’s de facto moratorium on new oil and gas leases and permits. Why is “drill, baby, drill” appropriate for Saudi Arabia and Brazil, but not for the U.S.?
  • Last Saturday, the President called for an end to tax breaks for the oil industry. He said, “They’re making record profits and you’re paying near record prices at the pump. It has to stop.” So, the President wants to end oil “subsidies” in order to relieve Americans pain at the pump. This doesn’t make any sense, because the effect of oil industry “subsidies” is to lower the price of oil. It’s a market distortion meant to lower the cost of producing oil. By removing these “subsidies,” the price of oil would better reflect the forces of supply and demand, and it would increase.
    [N.B. To an extent, I agree with the President on this one—loopholes in the tax code are a form of corporate welfare that should be stopped. That said, these tax breaks aren’t unique to the oil industry, and singling it out only makes the tax code more complicated. A better way, as articulated by Rep. Paul Ryan, is eliminate ALL corporate welfare.]
  • The President wants to take away oil industry “subsidies,” and turn them into green energy giveaways, because, he says, this will “reduce our dependence on foreign oil.” For starters, it’s unclear how investments in unreliable, expensive electricity produced by wind and solar would “reduce our dependence on foreign oil.” Moreover, in the past, Obama’s has dismissed “drill, baby, drill” on the grounds that it would take years to impact the global oil market. The President claims that expanded oil production would take too long to have an effect on the price of gas, but that increased taxpayer handouts to wind and solar would somehow “reduce our dependence on foreign oil” in a more reasonable time frame.  This is nonsensical.
Post image for ‘Imported’ Emissions Offset Kyoto Protocol CO2 Reductions

‘Imported’ Emissions Offset Kyoto Protocol CO2 Reductions

by Marlo Lewis on April 27, 2011

in Blog, Features

Has the EU met its emission reduction targets under the Kyoto Protocol? Not if emissions associated with goods Europe imports from Asia are taken into account. So finds a study published this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

The study, Growth in emission transfers via international trade from 1990 to 2008, calculates the net increase in global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions resulting from developed countries’ imports of goods produced in developing countries. The study provides additional evidence of Kyoto’s futility, although the authors, a team of Norwegian, German, and U.S. researchers, don’t draw this conclusion and would likely deny it.

Some key findings: [click to continue…]

Newt Gingrich Paid $300K to Praise Ethanol

by Brian McGraw on April 26, 2011

in Blog, Features

Post image for Newt Gingrich Paid $300K to Praise Ethanol

From  The Center for Public Integrity:

According to IRS records, the ethanol group Growth Energy paid Gingrich’s consulting firm $312,500 in 2009.The former House Speaker was the organization’s top-paid consultant, according to the records. His pay was one of the group’s largest single expenditures, as it took in and spent about $11 million to promote ethanol and to lobby for federal incentives for its use.

In a Growth Energy publication, Gingrich was listed as a consultant who offered advice on “strategy and communication issues” and who “will speak positively on ethanol related topics to media.”

Chris Thorne, a Growth Energy spokesman, said Gingrich was not hired again in 2010. The group was organized by ethanol producers from the Midwest in late 2008, Thorne said. Its members sought Gingrich’s counsel when it started because “they were people who were never involved in DC politics before, and they were looking for someone who knew how to get things done.” The organization’s IRS report for 2010 is not yet available.

First, the idea that Growth Energy doesn’t have anyone who is familiar with DC politics is laughable. The CEO of Growth Energy is Tom Buis, formerly the President of the American National Farmer’s Union, and named one of D.C.’s top 50 lobbyists. They also employ (or have employed) General Wesley Clark and Jim Nussle.

Do recall Newt Gingrich’s scuffle with the WSJ earlier this year, where in a letter to the editor Gingrich wrote:

Second, I am not a lobbyist for ethanol, not for anyone. My support of increased domestic energy production of all forms, including biofuels and domestic drilling, is born out of our urgent national security and economic needs.

Turns out that wasn’t true. CEI has previously written about Gingrich’s shameless ethanol pandering here and here.

 

EPA Shuts Down Drilling in Alaska

by Brian McGraw on April 25, 2011

in Blog, Features, Politics

Post image for EPA Shuts Down Drilling in Alaska

Shell announced today, for now, it must end a project to drill for oil off the coast of Northern Alaska, because of a decision made by an EPA appeals board to deny permits to acknowledge that Shell will meet air quality requirements. This is not part of ANWR.

Companies that drill for oil must go through extensive permitting processes and invest billions of dollars as payments for leasing the land, exploring for possible oil fields, equipment, etc. This is all done with the understanding that assuming they follow the letter of the law, there is a chance that this investment won’t be flushed down the toilet at the end of the tunnel. It appears that in this case Shell has followed procedure and that emissions will be below any standards required by the EPA:

The EPA’s appeals board ruled that Shell had not taken into consideration emissions from an ice-breaking vessel when calculating overall greenhouse gas emissions from the project. Environmental groups were thrilled by the ruling.

“What the modeling showed was in communities like Kaktovik, Shell’s drilling would increase air pollution levels close to air quality standards,” said Eric Grafe, Earthjustice’s lead attorney on the case. Earthjustice was joined by Center for Biological Diversity and the Alaska Wilderness League in challenging the air permits.

Talk about moving the goalposts. They must have been really desperate to cancel this project given that this was the best straight-faced excuse they could muster. Not only do you have to be below the legally required emission limits but you must also not even be “close” to the limits, as defined by unelected officials, one of whom is a former attorney for the Environmental Defense Fund.

Events like this are a prime example of why many in Congress want to strip authority from the EPA. Shell had reportedly invested over $4 billion in this project. When companies make investment decisions, consideration is given to whether or not bureaucrats can make arbitrary decisions to shut the project down halfway through a multi-year process. There are many other countries with natural resource reserves who do not subject economic activity to such unpredictable insanity, and in the eye of a corporation, after an event like this these locations begin to look more preferable to dealing with the United States.

 

 

 

Energy Populism at the Justice Department

by Brian McGraw on April 22, 2011

in Blog, Features

Post image for Energy Populism at the Justice Department

In case you haven’t checked recently, gas prices are high again. Fear not, because the DoJ is on the case: “High gasoline prices prompt Justice department to eye energy industry.” From the article:

Attorney General Eric Holder made no secret the move is a direct response to public angst, not to current evidence of any illegal conduct.

…

While promising official vigilance, the attorney general acknowledged regional differences in gasoline prices, and said, “It is also clear that there are lawful reasons for increases in gas prices, given supply and demand.”

At least give them credit for admitting that they’re wasting taxpayer dollars on a bunch of nonsense. If public conern is the only metric for a DoJ bureaucratic task-force, there are a number of other issues American’s are inappropriately worried about. I’d be shocked if the Department of Justice was interested in wasting its time on those issues.

There was a good piece in Forbes explaining the (lack of) evidence that speculators have been driving the price of oil by Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren.

Post image for Is Earth Day Passé?

Is Earth Day Passé?

by Marlo Lewis on April 22, 2011

in Features

I just checked the Web sites of eight leading eco-activist groups, curious as to how prominently the organizations are featuring Earth Day messages and activities.

Surprisingly, seven of the groups — Center for Biological Diversity, EarthJustice, Environmental Defense Fund, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council — say nary a word about Earth Day.

Sierra Club is the sole partial exception — they’re offering a $15 gift if you join the organization on Earth Day. It’s almost as if green pressure groups are as sheepish about Earth Day as their congressional allies are about the policy that dare not speak its name — cap-and-trade. 

So if they’re not advertising Earth Day, what are they talking about? Six of the eight groups’ Web sites feature strikingly similar photos and messages about the April 2010 BP oil spill:

  • Center for Biological Diversity – “Gulf Disaster One Year Later”
  • EarthJustice – “One Year After the Gulf Oil Spill”
  • Environmental Defense Fund – “One Year After BP Disaster, Congress Lags Its Response”
  • Greenpeace – “Deep Water Horizon One Year On”
  • National Wildlife Federation – “Status of the Gulf: Wildlife and Wetlands One Year after the Gulf Oil Disaster”
  • Natural Resources Defense Council – “Disaster in Gulf Lives On”

Groupthink (“We are Borg . . .”) can afflict partisans of any agenda, but it is endemic to ideologies demanding ever-greater political control over economic decisions.

Post image for Where Are the Climate Refugees?

Where Are the Climate Refugees?

by Marlo Lewis on April 21, 2011

in Blog, Features

♫ You don’t have to live like a refugee ♫

You’ve probably heard the dreary narrative many times. By increasing the frequency and severity of floods, storms, droughts, and famines, and by accelerating sea-level rise, anthropogenic global warming will drive millions of people from their homelands. Wave after wave of “environmental refugees” will inundate poor countries barely able to feed their own populations. Fragile governments will tumble. Regional conflicts will intensify. Moral of story: “Global warming is a national security threat — even the generals are worried.”

Google “climate change” and “environmental refugees,” and about 5 million sites  pop up. So you might be inclined to think, where there’s so much smoke, there’s bound to be some fire.

Many of these sites — for example, National Geographic News — reference a November 2005 United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) report predicting there would be as many as 50 million climate refugees in 2010. What actually happened?

Today’s (pre-Earth Day) edition of the Wall Street Journal reports that the 50 million climate refugees did not materialize. In fact, many of the places UNEP supposed would be hardest hit by global warming are rapidly gaining population! [click to continue…]

Arnold Revisits Judgment Day

by Brian McGraw on April 21, 2011

in Blog, Features

Post image for Arnold Revisits Judgment Day

Depending on where you live, April 21, 2011 may have already faded into yet another non-apocalyptic win for humanity. If not, you may still have about 12 hours to be worried.

Arnold Schwarzenegger has taken to The Wall Street Journal op-ed pages to warn of the potential future termination of humanity:

Today, I have tears in my eyes again, but for a very different reason. Some in Washington are threatening to pull the plug on this success. Since January, there have been more than a dozen proposals in Congress to limit enforcement of our clean-air rules, create special-interest loopholes, and attempt to reverse scientific findings. These attacks go by different names and target different aspects of the law, but they all amount to the same thing: dirtier air.

This is not an abstract political fight. If these proposals are passed, more mercury, dioxins, carbon pollution and acid gases will end up in the air our kids breathe. More Americans will get sick, end up in the hospital, and die from respiratory illness.

Don’t cry, Arnold! Much of this is an abstract political fight. The major push back and political grandstanding against the proposed EPA rules is what, if anything, should be done about the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The only proposal floated by Congress was found to be horribly ineffective, even by many environmentalists. During that fight, the Obama administration threatened opponents to accept it, because EPA regulations would follow if the legislation didn’t pass, and the EPA wasn’t capable of providing efficient or even effective “solutions.”

And here we are, with the EPA moving forward on costly regulations (during a recession) that, according to their own estimates, will reduce temperatures in 2100 by anywhere from 0.0015 to 0.006 degrees centigrade. Remember, Arnold, whatever your opinion on the historical benefits of the EPA, past performance is no guarantee of future success.

Finally, Arnold points to California as a model economy:

And, as I know from California’s experience, clean-air rules have led to innovation and new technologies that have created hundreds of thousands of new jobs and billions in clean-energy investment.

I’m not sure California ought to be cited as the model of anything, given their inability to budget and the steady exodus of business from the state.

 

The IPCC and Conflicts of Interest

by Brian McGraw on April 19, 2011

in Blog, Features, Politics

Post image for The IPCC and Conflicts of Interest

Via Roger Pielke Jr.

The IPCC has released documents to address policy changes related to concerns over conflicts of interest that may exist for authors of IPCC reports (summary here). They refer to conflicts of interest as mainly financial in nature, though allow for the possibility of significant non-financial COI’s to be considered as well.

They also have an interesting discussion on the difference between a conflict of interest and bias, noting that bias is mostly unavoidable and attempts will be made to balance perspectives:

Conflict of interest policies in scientific assessment bodies typically make a distinction between “conflict of interest” and “bias,” which refers to a point of view or perspective that is strongly held regarding a particular issue or set of issues. In the case of author and review teams, bias can and should be managed through the selection of a balance of perspectives. For example, it is expected that IPCC author teams will include individuals with different perspectives and affiliations.

Unfortunately, as Roger points out, there a number of problems that remain to be addressed. The submissions rely entirely on individual authors to disclose potential COI’s, and many could go unreported. The most glaring problem though is that the committee will work in secret on these issues and will disclose none of this information to the public.

Given the extent to which there have been problems involving IPCC authors, a tilt towards further transparency of these disclosures or deliberations (while respecting an individual’s financial privacy) seems like a good idea. Do they expect people to be satisfied with “trust us, we looked into this” given past issues?

Post image for Flood Risk: Not Worse than Predicted

Flood Risk: Not Worse than Predicted

by Marlo Lewis on April 18, 2011

in Blog, Features

Google “global warming” and “flooding,” and you’ll find 3.96 million sites where these topics are discussed together. The overwhelming majority of sites, it’s safe to assume, warn of global warming-induced increases in the frequency and severity of flooding.

And if you’ve paid any attention to the global warming debate, you know that alarmists predictably predict that climate change impacts are even worse than they previously predicted.

But, as noted in an earlier post, a recent study based on global tide gauge data (Houston and Dean, 2011) found that the rate of sea-level rise over the past 80 years did not accelerate and, in fact, slightly decelerated. Just the opposite of what we usually hear.

A new study (Bouzotias et al., 2011) by scientists with the National Technical University of Athens brings more good news: Discharge records of the world’s river basins show a decreasing trend in floods over the past 50 years.

The researchers examined extreme floods at 119 stations worldwide with records longer than 50 years. In particular, they analyzed “trends and persistence (else known as Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamics), which characterizes the temporal streamflow variability across several time scales.”

Noting the “common belief” that “the severity, frequency and consequences from floods have been increased in recent years,” the Bouzotios team sought to determine “whether there is a general increasing tendency worldwide, especially considering the last climate period (after 1970) when the effects of global warming are believed to be apparent.”

Here’s what they found:

Analysis of trends and of aggregated time series on climatic (30-year) scale does not indicate consistent trends worldwide. Despite common perception, in general, the detected trends are more negative (less intense floods in most recent years) than positive. Similarly, Svensson et al. (2005) and Di Baldassarre et al. (2010) did not find systematical change neither in flood increasing or decreasing numbers nor change in flood magnitudes in their analysis.

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →