♫ Well my dog died just yesterday and left me all alone.
The finance company dropped by today and repossessed my home.
That’s just a drop in the bucket compared to losing you,
And I’m down to seeds and stems again, too.
Got the Down to Seeds and Stems again Blues. ♫
Commander Cody’s lament, poignantly twanged by Telemaster Bill Kirchen, harks back to a bygone era, before medical marijuana and the electrification of indoor victory gardens. Things are different now. Tea leaves are harvested in abundance.
But potheads, or at least those who worry about the “climate crisis,” may still need to sing the blues. A new study by Evan Mills of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory finds that indoor Cannabis production has a very large carbon footprint. If you’re too far gone to read the study, man, then, like, just look at the picture:
Reporter Colin Sullivan summarizes the study, titled “Energy Up in Smoke,” in yesterday’s E&E News (subscription required): [click to continue…]
Climate change is real. Climate change is manmade. Manmade climate change has happened within the last twenty-four months.
Leaders in the climate change debate have controlled the message for forty years since the adoption of the Clean Air Act. They have “approached climate change politics with an air of disdain,” according to Fred Krupp, President, Environmental Defense Fund (established in 1967).
Krupp addressed the changing political climate at Fortune Magazine’s Brainstorm Green Conference in early April and admitted that there is a “newfound hostility to climate policy.” He advised the environmental community to be “more humble” and “less arrogant.” He acknowledged the failure of a comprehensive energy and/or cap and trade policy.
Krupp is correct. With the falsification of climate records exposed—known as Climategate, the American people now see climate change as merely hysteria. Polls show they do not view it as a real problem that we need to address now.
At the same conference, Jim Rogers, CEO of Duke Energy, agreed. He said, “Cap and trade cannot be sold and must be reinvented,” adding that it was going to be hard to “resurrect cap and trade.”
[click to continue…]
The ethanol industry has found a friend — the US Department of Agriculture. The industry will be less reliant on new legislation to encourage ethanol consumption, thanks to a new USDA announcement that the department will begin funding grants and loan guarantees for gas stations that choose to install new E-85 blender pumps. This was one of the primary legislative goals of the renewable fuels lobbyists.
The funding for the program will be provided by the 2008 farm bill which included funding that can be used to promote renewable energy development. The total fund amounts to $70 million in 2011 and another $70 million in 2012.
From the article:
Most gasoline sold in the U.S. is 10% ethanol, but a growing fleet of flexible-fuel vehicles can run on an 85%-ethanol blend, or E85. However, there are fewer pumps available to dispense it, Mr. Vilsack said.
In the U.S., only about 2,350 fueling stations out of more than 110,000 offer E85 pumps, according to the USDA.
It’s obvious why gasoline retailers are hesitant to install E-85 pumps, adjusting for energy content its not a better deal than gasoline.
When really pressed on why the USDA and the Obama administration continue to support corn based ethanol, they point to using it as helping support the fledgling cellulosic ethanol industry, which seems to always be just 5 years away from commercial viability.
House Passes EPA Pre-Emption Bill, 255-172
The House of Representatives on Thursday passed H. R. 910th, the Energy Tax Prevention Act, by a vote of 255 to 172. Nineteen Democrats voted Yes. No Republicans voted No. This is a remarkable turnaround from the last Congress, when on 26th June 2009 the House voted 219 to 212 to pass the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill.
The Energy Tax Prevention Act, sponsored by Rep. Fred. Upton (R-Mich.), Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, would prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from using the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and thereby put a potentially huge indirect tax on American consumers and businesses. Coal, oil, and natural gas produce carbon dioxide, the principal greenhouse gas, when burned. Those three fuels provide over 80% of the energy used in America. Thus regulating carbon dioxide emissions essentially puts the EPA in charge of running the U. S. economy.
Five Republicans who voted for the Waxman-Markey bill in 2009 voted for H. R. 910 yesterday. They are: Mary Bono Mack of California, Chris Smith, Leonard Lance, and Frank Lobiondo of New Jersey, and Dave Reichert of Washington.
[click to continue…]
In the News
If Al Gore Can Outgrow the Ethanol Fad, Why Can’t Conservatives?
Marlo Lewis, GlobalWarming.org, 7 April 2011
Greens Oppose Biomass in Pacific Northwest
Joel Millman, Wall Street Journal, 7 April 2011
Biofuels Raise Hunger Fears
Elisabeth Rosenthal, New York Times, 7 April 2011
Obama’s Energy Funny
Chris Horner, AmSpecBlog, 6 April 2011
The Longer the Delay, the More You Pay
Sen. John Barrasso, Politico, 6 April 2011
Government vs. Resourceship
John Bratland, MasterResource.org, 6 April 2011
China Sees Evil of Plastic Bags
Jonah Goldberg, USA Today, 6 April 2011
Obama-Backed Tesla Sues Its Critics
Henry Payne, Planet Gore, 6 April 2011
Should We Feed Hungry People, Even If It’s Bad for the Environment?
Alex Berezow, Forbes, 6 April 2011
UN IPCC: Analyst or Advocate?
Lee Lane, RealClearScience.com, 5 April 2011
GE’s Immelt: Jobs Czar from Hell
Debra Saunders, San Francisco Chronicle, 4 April 2011
New Energy Economy Drubbed in Debate
Vincent Carroll, Denver Post, 2 April 2011
Renewable Energy Standards Are Unconstitutional
Paul Chesser, Washington Times, 1 April 2011
The House of Representatives this afternoon passed H. R. 910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act, by a vote of 255 to 172. Nineteen Democrats voted Yes. No Republicans voted No. This is a remarkable turnaround from the last Congress when on 26th June 2009 the House voted 219 to 212 to pass the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill.
The Energy Tax Prevention Act, sponsored by Rep. Fred. Upton (R-Mich.), the Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, would prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from using the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and thereby put a potentially huge indirect tax on American consumers and businesses. Coal, oil, and natural gas produce carbon dioxide, the principal greenhouse gas, when burned. Those three fuels provide over 80% of the energy used in America. Thus regulating carbon dioxide emissions essentially puts the EPA in charge of running the U. S. economy.
This is just the first step in stopping the Obama Administration’s attempt to raise energy prices . The House bill now heads to the Senate, where yesterday an attempt to add the Energy Tax Prevention Act (introduced in the Senate as S. 482 by Senator James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma) as an amendment to another bill was defeated on a 50-50 vote. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s amendment would have required 60 votes to be attached to S. 493. Four Democrats joined 46 Republicans in voting for the amendment–Senators Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, and Mark Pryor of Arkansas. Senator Susan Collins of Maine was the only Republican to vote No.
The strong House vote in favor of the Energy Tax Prevention Act should build new momentum to pass it in the Senate later this year. Of course, the White House has already issued a veto threat, which shows that President Obama is not interested in creating new jobs and restoring prosperity to America. Congress has now rejected cap-and-tax resoundingly, but the President still hopes to achieve through backdoor regulation his goals of skyrocketing electric rates and gasoline prices at the $10 a gallon European level.
The Senate is expected to vote on S. 520, a bill to repeal the 45 cents per gallon volumetric ethanol excise tax credit (VEETC). The bill is co-sponsored by Sens. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and Benjamin Cardin (D-Md.). Sens. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Jim Webb (D-Va.) have also introduced S. 530, which would limit the VEETC to “advanced biofuels,” thus ending the subsidy for conventional corn ethanol. S. 530 would also scale back the 54 cents per gallon ethanol import tariff commensurately with the reduction in the tax credit.
The VEETC adds about $6 billion annually to the federal deficit. Unlike many other tax credits that reduce a household’s or a business’s tax liability, the VEETC is a “refundable” tax credit. That means the VEETC is literally paid for out of the U.S. general fund with checks written by the Treasury Department. The protective tariff, for its part, prevents lower-priced Brazilian ethanol from competing in U.S. markets. It increases the price of motor fuel at the pump.
Now, you would think supporting S. 520 and S. 530 would be a no-brainer for conservative lawmakers. But some are reportedly getting cold feet. To remind them of their duty to put the general interest of consumers and taxpayers ahead of the special interest of King Corn, I offer the following observations. [click to continue…]
At The Huffington Post, Jeffrey Rubin writes: “Only a Recession Can Deliver Obama’s Energy Targets.”
Unfortunately, we have heard this song many times before. In 1973, President Richard Nixon unveiled “Project Independence” in response to the OPEC oil embargo that was triggered by the Arab-Israeli war. President Jimmy Carter called the need to lessen U.S. dependence on Middle Eastern oil the moral equivalent of war in response to the supply disruptions that followed the Iranian Revolution. President George Bush Jr. referred to America’s dependence on foreign oil as nothing short of an addiction.
Over the past four decades, U.S. presidents have waxed eloquent about the need to reduce the country’s dependence on imported oil. Yet the U.S. economy still relies on imports for more than 50% of the 19 million barrels of oil burned every day. As a result, the U.S. remains as vulnerable to soaring oil prices as it was during the OPEC shocks in the 1970s.
[click to continue…]
The House today votes on H.R. 910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act, as amended. The bill would stop EPA from ‘legislating’ climate policy under the guise of implementing the Clean Air Act (CAA), a statute enacted in 1970, years before global warming became a public policy issue.
Debate will last for one hour. The Rules Committee is allowing Democrats to offer twelve hostile amendments. Three Republican amendments to strengthen the bill (by, for example, prohibiting federal agencies from regulating greenhouse gases via the Endangered Species Act) were ruled out of order. As my colleague Myron Ebell notes, Democrats allowed Republicans to offer only one amendment on the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill. The November 2010 elections notwithstanding, the House GOP still suffers from an acute case of minority-itis.
The most mischievous of the Democratic amendments are: [click to continue…]
There is an ongoing ethanol spat between Senator Coburn (R-OK) and Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform. The dispute is over conservative support for a bill that would repeal the ethanol tax credit, which has the effect of raising an industry specific tax. Americans for Tax Reform comes down hard on any effort to increase taxes. The Wall Street Journal added their two cents in favor of Senator Coburn:
Our readers know Mr. Norquist as the plucky author of the no-new-taxes pledge, which has helped to make tax increases a red line in Republican politics. In a letter to Mr. Coburn, a deputy of Mr. Norquist writes: “Repealing the ethanol credit is the right thing to do, but other taxes must be reduced in the same legislation by at least this much to prevent a net tax increase.”
[click to continue…]
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
CEI.org 
