Amy Ridenour is the president of the National Center for Public Policy Research. She and her husband David, the vice president of the National Center, are the parents of three third graders. David's comments, like those of other National Center staff members, directors, associates and fellows, often appear in this blog.
The National Center for Public Policy Research is a 501(c)(3) non-profit, non-partisan communications and research foundation established in 1982 and based in Washington, D.C. We believe the principles of a free market, individual liberty and personal responsibility, combined with a commitment to a strong national defense, provide the greatest hope for meeting the challenges facing America in the 21st century.
Copyright 2003-2009 National Center for Public Policy Research
All links on this site are provided exclusively for educational purposes. No endorsement of the content of external links is implied; nor should any post on this blog be construed as endorsing or opposing any political party or candidate for public office.
Letters to this site or to The National Center may be published, including the name of the author. Please explicitly inform us if a letter is not for publication or if you prefer that it be published anonymously.
Thursday, July 02, 2009
National Center's Tom Borelli Discusses Cap-and-Trade on Glenn Beck
In case you missed it, here's the segment of Glenn Beck's Fox TV show from Wednesday night featuring Tom Borelli of the National Center for Public Policy Research and David Kreutzer of the Heritage Foundation.
The topic is cap and trade, USCAP, corporations doing the bidding of the left, the Waxman-Markey global warming bill and the use of last minute amendments filled with goodies (amendments Congress wasn't given time to read, of course) by the House leadership to get the legislation approved by the House.
E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. Subscribe to this blog's feed.
Not me; I don't, but when I saw this car in a parking lot, I thought, "Gee, do you suppose car companies believe hybrid buyers want the world to know they drive a hybrid?"
I think I'll get a big sticker for the back window of my vehicle. It will say: GASOLINE.
I'm sure everybody's very interested.
E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. Subscribe to this blog's feed.
American Spectator Covers African-American Energy Poll
Thanks to W. James Antle for his story "Lights Out," in the American Spectator, which mentioned The National Center's poll of the African-American community on energy issues.
The article appeared on Rush Limbaugh's "Stack of Stuff" Thursday.
E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. Subscribe to this blog's feed.
House Leadership Takes Suicidal Stand Against Its African-American Base - Townhall.com
David Ridenour has a new column published on TownHall.com examining the Democratic Congressional leadership's seemingly suicidal lack of concern for the wishes of its most loyal core constituency, African-Americans.
It begins:
Overly influenced by certain big-name green groups, misled by their own ideology and perhaps also a bit dazzled by the unlikely stardom of failed-politician-turned-climate-hero Al Gore, Democrats on Capitol Hill seem bent on self-destruction when it comes to climate change...
Poll Shows: Black Americans Prefer Delaying Action on Climate Change; Want Economy Fixed First
76% of African-Americans want Congress to make economic recovery, not climate change, its top priority, says a poll just released by the National Center for Public Policy Research.
The U.S. House of Representatives is planning a vote today on the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade climate bill.
The legislation, if adopted, is expected to reduce aggregate GDP by $7.4 trillion in an effort to reduce global warming, based on a Heritage Foundation analysis.
The survey of 800 African-Americans, 80% of which were self-identified Democrats and 4% self-identified Republicans, found significant concern that government action on climate change would have a harmful and disproportionately negative impact on the African-American community.
Among the key findings:
* 38% believe job losses from climate change legislation would be felt most strongly in the black community. 7% believe job losses would fall most on Hispanics and 2% on whites;
* 56% believe Washington policymakers have failed to adequately consider economic and quality of life concerns of the black community when addressing climate issues;
* 52% of respondents don't want to pay more for gasoline or electricity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 73% are unwilling to pay more than 50 cents more for a gallon of gas; 76% are unwilling to pay more than $50 more per year for electricity;
* Black Americans are virtually deadlocked on plans to reduce emissions if it would increase prices and unemployment. 44% opposed reductions under these circumstances, 45% supported them.
* 76% want Congress to make economic recovery the top priority.
The survey was conducted by Wilson Research Strategies and has a margin of error of +/- 3.4%. The questions we asked, plus summary materials, can be viewed at: http://www.nationalcenter.org/BlackOpinion.html.
E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. Subscribe to this blog's feed.
The NRDC would have done itself a favor to stay home from work that day. Heritage's response to the critique so thoroughly nails the NRDC that all the NRDC has done is give the Heritage study more publicity.
For instance, in the second paragraph of its critique, the NRDC complains that the Heritage Foundation analysis of the cost of the Waxman-markey cap-and-trade bill fails to take into account the "cost of inaction," that is, the cost of the bad stuff that would happen if Waxman-Markey is not adopted.
HEL-LO! Anybody home, NRDC? Waxman-Markey, even in a best-case scenario, would have negligible, if any, impact on the climate. And the Heritage Foundation DID mention this, to whit, in the original study:
The impact of Waxman-Markey on the next generation of families is thousands of dollars per year in higher energy costs, over $100,000 of additional federal debt (above and beyond the unconscionable increases already scheduled), a weaker economy, and more unemployment. And all for a change in world temperature that might not be noticeable [emphasis added].
You don't need to take Heritage's word for it, or mine. Even prominent environmental organizations that agree with the NRDC about the global warming theory say Waxman-Markey would not (to their way of thinking) sufficiently affect the climate.
Optimists are saying Waxman-Markey might (believe me, nobody knows) lower world temperatures by half a degree celsius over 40 years or so.
If spending all that money isn't going to solve the alleged problem, then what's the point of spending the money?
By way of congratulations to Heritage, let's recap Heritage's conclusions...
If Waxman-Markey is adopted, by 2035:
The typical family of four will see its direct energy costs rise by over $1,500 per year.
Pain at the electric meter causes consumers to reduce electricity consumption by 36 percent. Even with this cutback, the electric bill for a family of four will be $754 more that year and $12,933 more in total from 2012 to 2035.
The higher gasoline prices will have forced households to cut consumption by 15 percent, but a family of four will still pay $596 more that year and $8,000 more between 2012 and 2035.
In total, for the years 2012-2035, a family of four will see its direct energy costs rise by over $24,000. These inflation-adjusted numbers do not include the indirect energy costs consumers will pay as producers are forced to raise the price of their products to reflect the higher costs of production. Nor does the $24,000 include the higher expenditure for such things as more energy-efficient cars and appliances or the disutility of driving smaller, less safe vehicles or the discomfort of using less heating and cooling.
As the economy adjusts to shrinking GDP and rising energy prices, employment takes a big hit. On average, employment is lower by 844,000 jobs. In some years cap and trade reduces employment by more than 1.9 million jobs.
The negative economic impacts accumulate, and the national debt is no exception. Waxman-Markey drives up the national debt 29 percent by 2035. This is 29 percent above what it would be without the legislation and represents an additional $33,400 per person, or more than $133,000 for a family of four. To reiterate, these burdens come after adjusting for inflation and are in addition to the $450,000 per family of federal debt that will accrue over this period even without cap and trade.
No wonder the NRDC was so desperate to try to undermine Heritage's credibility.
E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. Subscribe to this blog's feed.
We Need the Energy; We Need the Jobs; We Need the Revenue
In an op-ed appearing in papers nationwide this week, David Ridenour says Congress and the Obama White House are "shunning [an] economic stimulus that would cost taxpayers zilch, yet could create up to 160,000 jobs and up to $1.7-trillion in new government revenue."
What's more, he says, "A significant part of this would flow to cash-strapped states, giving them funding needed to help unemployed workers and their families, fund schools, and avoid cuts in critical state services."
The stimulus: Drilling for oil.
Let's face it: We need the stuff.
Speaking of which, David's piece also examines the likelihood that solar and wind power can meet America's energy needs.
Outrage of the Day: Obama's Solar Powered Dishonesty
Speaking Wednesday at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada, President Obama bragged that a federal-government owned solar electric plant at the base saves taxpayers $1 million a year:
...right now, we're standing near the largest solar electric plant of its kind in the entire Western Hemisphere -- the entire Western Hemisphere. More than 72,000 solar panels built on part of an old landfill provide 25 percent of the electricity for the 12,000 people who live and work here at Nellis. That's the equivalent of powering about 13,200 homes during the day.
It's a project that took about half a year to complete, created 200 jobs, and will save the United States Air Force, which is the largest consumer of energy in the federal government, nearly $1 million -- $1 million a year.
My first thought: But what did it cost to build?
Courtesy of DRJ at Patterico, we have an answer: Over $100 million.
The plant opened 18 months ago, so President Obama's statement won't be true for 97 1/2 years.
Assuming no tax funds are spent on maintenance by then.
The only positive thing I can say here is that the President's statement probably wasn't technically a lie, because he most likely literally had no idea what he was talking about.
But what's his staff's excuse?
E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. Subscribe to this blog's feed.
"Charlie Munger, the second in command behind Warren Buffet at Berkshire Hathaway, says in an interview on CNBC that it's 'almost demented' to pass cap-and-trade given the state of our economy."
So reports Tom Borelli, director of the National Center for Public Policy Research's Free Enterprise Project, on our sister blog, the Free Enterpriser.
For more, including a link to the video, read Tom's "Berkshire's Munger: Cap & Trade Won't Work," here.
After an appearance last month in the halls of Congress, a live "kangaroo" appeared today at a federal hearing in San Francisco to protest the "kangaroo court" atmosphere at an important meeting to discuss the future of national energy policy.
Obama Administration Interior Secretary Ken Salazar presided over a public hearing today that effectively represented only one aspect of the debate over offshore energy development. The kangaroo is meant to point out that oil and gas exploration is being largely ignored in favor of promoting wind power along the Pacific coast.
The kangaroo was seen protesting the hearing outside the Robertson Auditorium on the Mission Bay campus of the University of California, San Francisco (1675 Owens Street) between 11:00 AM and 1:00 PM Pacific Time.
"Oil and gas exploration could create trillions in revenue and tens of thousands of jobs, but this hearing is likely to overlook this economic stimulus package in favor of dubious green technology," said National Center executive director David W. Almasi. "Right now is the window of opportunity. The government is considering the next five-year plan for energy policy. To ignore drilling today is irresponsible, which is why it is considered a kangaroo court and why participants will find a live, bouncing marsupial there today."
Today's hearing is the third of four being conducted by Salazar and the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service. The hearings follow a report issued by the Obama Administration that says Southern Oregon and Northern California are prime areas for wind-energy development. This is despite the acknowledgement that current technology and the ocean terrain in the region are incompatible and that the region also lacks the transmission infrastructure necessary to accommodate any offshore production of wind energy.
To the contrary, the Point Arena Basin off Mendocino County, California is thought to have a more than 1.5 billion barrels of recoverable oil. The California coastline is already the home to many offshore drilling operations.
A kangaroo visit was already made to a hearing of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Natural Resources in Washington, D.C. on March 31. A similar "kangaroo court" on drought conditions in California was being protested at that time. Before last-minute testimony by area congressmen was added, this hearing was expected to be simply a platform for government officials and environmental radicals to promote further regulation of resources in the name of combating global warming.
"As was seen in yesterday's tea parties against out-of-control government spending and taxation, it's clear that people want their leaders to be more accountable," said The National Center's Almasi. "The same applies to the creation of public policy. When crafting something as important as our nation's energy future, a one-sided hearing just won't do. If they continue in this manner, they can expect to be seeing a lot of this kangaroo."
The National Center for Public Policy Research is a non-profit 501(c)(3) communications and research foundation dedicated to providing free market solutions to today's public policy problems. For more information, visit the National Center's website at www.nationalcenter.org or call (202) 543-4110.
Outrage of the Day: The Costly Waxman-Markey Global Warming Tax
Last Tuesday, Representatives Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Ed Markey (D-MA) unveiled proposed legislation that, if adopted, would kill (at best) hundreds of thousands, more likely, millions of jobs and put a substantial and highly-regressive global warming tax on every American even as Congressional leaders wring their hands and bemoan the state of our economy.
Adding insult to injury, Waxman made the outlandish claim the monstrosity "will create millions of clean energy jobs," though, admittedly, there are few liberal politicians who have not made the moronic claim that raising the cost of energy will be a net job-creator.
If there is any educated person left who doubts that environmentalists care little about the welfare of ordinary people, even a brief review of this bill should permanently prevent a reoccurrence of that particular hallucination.
Lest I be thought the only one who thinks it would be idiotic for the Congressional majority to nearly bankrupt the nation via a trillion-dollar "stimulus" bill only to immediately intentionally shoot the economy in the proverbial head with a cap-and-trade-plus global warming tax, here are a few other opinions expressed following the release of the Waxman-Markey draft:
"Since 85 percent of U.S. energy demand is met by fossil fuels, taxing the lifeblood of the American economy would have disastrous consequences. The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis' study of the Lieberman-Warner cap and trade bill found aggregate real GDP losses (adjusted for inflation) of nearly $5 trillion -- for comparison, this is equivalent to the economic damage done by over 600 hurricanes. The bill would've also destroyed between 400,000 and 800,000 jobs each year. It should be noted that the targets and timetables in the discussion draft are considerably more stringent than those in Lieberman-Warner and thus would be costlier." -Nick Loris, The Heritage Foundation's The Foundry Blog, March 31, 2009
Add together NASA since its inception, the cost of Hurricane Katrina and spending on the New Deal. Adjust for inflation. What do you get? Not quite the amount of money a cap and trade program would generate in energy taxes on consumers. The $1.9 trillion generated over eight years from a cap-and-trade bill would still be larger than the $1.5 trillion from NASA, the New Deal, and Hurricane Katrina. -Nick Loris, The Heritage Foundation's The Foundry Blog, April 2, 2009
"Many U.S. lawmakers view cap and trade as a politically superior non-tax approach to climate policy. However, cap and trade imposes identical economic burdens on households to a similarly designed carbon tax. ...we present new estimates of the distributional impact of a typical cap and-trade system by income, age, U.S. region and family type. In total, households would face an annual burden of roughly $144.8 billion per year with costs disproportionately borne by low-income households, those under age 25 and over 75 years, those in Southern states, and single parents with dependent children." -Andrew Chamberlain, "Who Pays for Climate Policy? New Estimates of the Household Burden and Economic Impact of a U.S. Cap-and-Trade System," (pdf) Tax Foundation Working Paper No. 6, March 2009
"The bill as drafted clears the way for carbon protectionism. It envisages "rebates" to companies that have to pay higher costs than their international competitors, which amounts to illegal state aid under WTO rules. Further, it directs the President to institute what is laughably called a 'border adjustment' program requiring foreign companies to pay for the cost of carbon. This is nothing more than a tariff aimed at eliminating the competitive advantage of other nations. Taken together, these provisions represent the first shot in what is likely to prove a disastrous carbon trade war." -Iain Murray, Competitive Enterprise Institute, March 31, 2009
"Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) said cap and trade systems would be devastating to coal manufacturing states like Illinois and West Virginia and proposed cap and trade legislation could kill the entire coal mining industry.
'This cap-and-trade scheme may not just reduce Illinois coal jobs further -- it is my worry that this legislation aims to kill the entire coal industry,' Shimkus told CNSNews.com.
Shimkus and Rep. Shelly Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) held a press conference Wednesday to rally support opposing the cap and trade proposals, which they said would lead to both higher energy costs and severe job loss in the coal mining industry..." -Ryan Byrnes, "Cap and Trade Legislation Would Kill Coal Industry, Congressman Says," CNSNews.com, April 2, 2009
"Until recently, much of the debate on climate change focused on the extent of the threat. But now that House Democratic leaders are planning to take up legislation to set up a mandatory cap-and-trade system for greenhouse emissions sometime this summer, opponents are focusing on the cost.
'They seem to give people the impression that it's going to be a huge environmentally friendly free lunch,' said Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis. 'This lunch is not free.'" -Jim Angle/AP, "Republicans Criticize Cost of Cap-and-Trade Emissions Plan," FoxNews.com, April 2, 2009
NY Times Story Gives Huge Waxman-Markey Global Warming Tax Bill One-Sided Treatment
When the New York Times today told its readers about the massive Henry Waxman-Ed Markey 648-page draft global warming tax bill, it bent over backwards to report the pros and cons of the proposal.
Not.
The March 31 story, supplied by Darren Samuelsohn and Ben Geman of Greenwire:
* Included sponsor Rep Waxman's claim that "this legislation will create millions of clean energy jobs, put America on the path to energy independence, and cut global warming pollution," without a balancing rebuttal or reference to the economic damage passage of the bill would almost assuredly cause.
* Followed that favorable quote by California liberal Democrat Waxman with a favorable quote by California liberal Democrat Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
* Followed those two favorable statements with seven sentences quoting Democrats Rep. Charles Gonzales (D-TX), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), and Rick Boucher (D-VA), who have quibbles on the margins about the proposal but who like the concept.
* Followed that with two sentences from the lone voice of rebuttal, the only Republican/conservative quoted, and the only person quoted who addressed the massive negative impact the bill, if adopted, would likely have on the economy, Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX).
* Followed the two sentences allocated to Rep. Barton with 32 paragraphs of discription of the bill, none of it a critical analysis.
* Concluded with seven paragraphs headlined "Reactions," which covered quotations and opinions from four organizations on an ideological spectrum ranging from very left-wing to far left-wing: The Environmental Defense Fund, the Union of Concerned Scientists, Oxfam America and Environment America. No economists, energy experts, free-market groups, businesses or business groups or any other individual or institution other than left-wing environmental organizations were quoted or cited.
No one with a straight face could call this a balanced story.
Watch Tom Borelli on the Fox Business Network's "Money for Breakfast" on Wednesday Morning
Note: Due to news coming from the G20 meeting, the Fox Business Network has postponed running the scheduled April 1 interview with Tom Borelli until April 2. We apologize for any inconvenience to our readers who tuned in April 1 expecting to see Tom.
From David Almasi:
Tom Borelli, director of The National Center's Free Enterprise Project, is scheduled to be a guest on the Wednesday morning edition of the Fox Business Network's "Money for Breakfast" program (April 1, 2009). Tom will be talking about the inherent problems with imposing a "cap-and-trade" policy relating to greenhouse gas emissions.
"Money for Breakfast" airs between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM eastern on the Fox Business Channel. Tom is tentatively scheduled to appear around 7:40 AM eastern. Check your local cable listings for local channel number or click here.
In a recent column on Townhall, Tom wrote about why some big businesses are lobbying for the inherently risky cap-and-trade policy:
...Clearly, these firms have placed a huge wager on cap-and-trade since the legislation will make carbon dioxide a commodity and drive demand for renewable energy sources such as wind turbines and solar panels.
But carbon trading is very speculative at best. For example, JPMorgan is seeking to create carbon emission credits from distributing energy-efficient stoves in Africa. Since the stoves will reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere because they burn less fuel than traditional cooking methods, the company wants to claim the savings as a carbon emission credit. The carbon credits would then be sold in the carbon exchange to a company that is over its government mandated limit...
...There must be something in the water on Wall Street that makes these firms dream up such ridiculous ideas. Creating a market built on a house of cards that man's activity is causing global warming is dangerous enough, but that risk gets magnified when markets are created by assigning an artificial value to a ubiquitous and invisible gas such as carbon dioxide.
Additionally, a National Center poll taken in 2008 found that the overwhelming majority of Americans oppose a cap-and-trade policy. The poll results can be found here
To learn more about the "Money for Breakfast" program, click here.
This post was written by National Center for Public Policy Research Executive Director David Almasi. To send comments to the author, write him at info@nationalcenter.org. Please state if a letter is not for publication or if you prefer that it be published anonymously.
Project 21 Fellow Deneen Borelli's commentary on the inherent problems within the "Pickens Plan" was published in today's Washington Examiner newspaper.
Billionaire T. Boone Pickens claims altruistic reasons for promoting the construction of massive wind farms and converting trucks and fleet vehicles to be powered by natural gas in order to lessen U.S. demand for foreign oil. Deneen points out the plan may result in both misery for politically-weak urban communities and money for Pickens.
Ultimately, she notes, the Pickens Plan may be a test of President Barack Obama's leadership.
In "Pickens Plan is Hot Air That May Burn America," Deneen writes:
Converting vehicles to natural gas taps a resource now used by power plants to generate electricity. To compensate, the Pickens Plan suggests massive wind turbines. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, 100,000 such turbines - many the size of 40-story buildings - would be necessary to handle just 20 percent of the nation's electricity needs.
To deliver that power, the Energy Department further estimates 12,650 miles of new transmission lines would be needed by 2030 at a cost of between $64 and $128 billion...
...Pickens compares the proposed new power grid to the construction of the 46,000-mile interstate highway system decades ago. Sadly, back then it was often the poorest neighborhoods selected for eminent domain evictions to make way for new roads.
So-called "negro removal" in Detroit's Paradise Valley and Newark's Central Ward helped spark the July 1967 riots that collectively led to 66 deaths. Highway construction destroyed hundreds of thousands of homes in a process the San Francisco Chronicle in 1959 called "a crime that cannot be prettied up."
Pickens has not assured the public his plan would not repeat this exploitation of minorities and the politically-disadvantaged.
Pickens would also likely profit from his plan, thanks to taxpayer support. He testified before Congress that his plan might succeed only with the wind energy Production Tax Credit (PTC), which was recently extended by the $787 billion bailout bill.
Mesa Power, a Pickens' company, wants to build a 2,700-turbine wind farm in Texas. According to a report by the National Center for Public Policy Research, "Pickens' firm stands to receive between $1.66 billion and about $3 billion in PTC payments alone over 10 years, a significant portion of its original investment."
Regarding the proposal as a challenge for the President, Deneen notes:
Obama's leadership will soon be tested. Will he side with the little guy, protecting their homes and guarding their access to affordable energy? Or will he deliver for special interests like T. Boone Pickens and anti-energy environmental organizations?
If he chooses the latter, it won't be the change so many people thought they voted for last November."
This post was written by National Center for Public Policy Research Executive Director David Almasi. To send comments to the author, write him at info@nationalcenter.org. Please state if a letter is not for publication or if you prefer that it be published anonymously.
Anti-global warming protester uses a "Stop Global Warming" sign as an ice scraper at rally at the U.S. Capitol coal-fired power plant Monday
"We don't want the world to boil, no coal, no oil!"
There was no chance, despite the warning of this protest chant, of anything boiling outside in Washington, D.C. today. Global warming activists who threatened "mass civil disobedience" in the nation's capitol Monday probably never expected to be competing with the biggest snowfall of the season.
Not going to get much power from this snowy solar panel...
Yet this seems to happen every time the global warming activists plan a major event to talk about how hot our planet is going to get. (For more information about this practice, see the children's story "Chicken Little.")
...as the non-functioning light bulbs supposedly powered by that solar panel demonstrate.
Hundreds of activists - mostly students, from the looks of it - were protesting Nancy Pelosi's private coal-fired power plant. It's the plant that powers the Capitol complex. Until recently, Pelosi and company pretended to have a carbon-neutral Congress by using taxpayer dollars to buy "carbon offsets" that essentially gave them little more than peace of mind. This practice has since been discontinued. An analysis found it might not be doing any good, and they no longer have faith in throwing money at their embarrassment (now, if we can get them to expand this line of thinking to their spend-and-tax agenda).
David Almasi and Devon Carlin of the National Center for Public Policy Research
Anyway, the Competitive Enterprise Institute enlisted the help of The National Center for Public Policy Research, FreedomWorks and other groups to point out that coal and oil provide plentiful and affordable energy to average Americans. Energy bills are up this year, and there is no way wind and solar - the darling energy-generation methods of today's protestors - are going to provide people with the amount of energy they need at the prices they can afford.
No one is against new and alternative sources of energy, but it's their way or the highway in the minds of these protestors. If they are successful, expect bigger bills and energy shortages in the future.
This blog post was compiled largely from notes compiled by David Almasi. _________________________
Note in this blog post by environmentalist Bill McKibben the announcement that James Hansen, who directs an agency of the U.S. government, is planning to get arrested in order "to give [Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress] the political space they need to act on their convictions."
McKibben believes those convictions include banning the burning of coal, which provides about half of our electricity, and other radical acts related to combatting the alleged threat of human-caused global warming. Evidently, these guys believe that a few radicals getting arrested will convince Congress to wreck what's left of the economy on purpose.
My sense is that, despite a fairly high percentage of duffuses among Congressional Democrats, they aren't dumb enough to intentionally sabotage economic recovery while spending hundreds of billions that they told the public are being spent to "stimulate" the economy.
There's a reason, you know, that President Obama has signaled to Congress that he will be perfectly happy to wait until 2010 for an anti-global warming bill. My guess is that perfect timing for him is soon enough to appease the left in the 2012 Democrat primary, and late enough that the economic pain of such legislation won't be felt until after the November 2012 election.
But somehow, all that seems almost a side issue, compared to the spectacle that is a government agency head getting arrested by government employees in order to pressure the government to do something it supposedly wants to do anyway.
I'm not sure this really is a government. It looks more like a bad circus.
Addendum, 2/25/09: See Hansen, on videotape, inviting the public to participate in what organizers apparently hope will be the "largest mass civil disobedience for the climate in U.S. history." [Snapshot shown above]
Hansen doesn't claim to be speaking for NASA's Goddard Institute in this video, but it seems inappropriate at best for a government agency head to urge his fellow citizens to break the law. If federal agency heads don't respect the law, why should the rest of us?
Possibly old-fashioned concepts like obeying the law, along with paying for our own mortgages, went out with the Bush Administration.
Tom Borelli, PhD, director of the National Center's Free Enterprise Project, appeared on the Fox News Channel's "Glenn Beck" program today at 5:00 pm eastern to discuss the appointment of General Electric CEO Jeffery Immelt to a new presidential advisory panel.
President Barack Obama today announced members of his new Economic Recovery Advisory Board. Immelt is one of the members. Tom has been a leading critic of Immelt's corporate advocacy for environmental causes at the peril of consumers, stockholders and employees.
In 2007, Tom named Immelt one of the top five worst corporate CEOs, noting:
...Immelt's global warming strategy is causing a series of unintended consequences. For example, the incandescent light bulb - a GE product and invention of its founder Thomas Edison - will be phased out by federal law.
Over the past year, GE lobbyists had to fight hard to defeat outright bans of incandescent bulbs and buy time to restructure its lighting business that currently relies more on traditional bulbs.
GE's coal business is also feeling the heat from concerns over global warming. While it has invested heavily in Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC), a technology that captures carbon dioxide from coal-fired electricity plants, environmentalists have another plan - just ban the use of coal.
This year, environmental activists have been successful in blocking the construction of a number of coal-fired power plants including 8 of 11 plants in Texas. The termination of the Texas power plants resulted in the cancellation of orders for GE's steam turbines worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
This post was written by National Center for Public Policy Research Executive Director David Almasi. To send comments to the author, write him at info@nationalcenter.org. Please state if a letter is not for publication or if you prefer that it be published anonymously.
At least $8.6 billion of President Obama’s proposed $1.2 trillion stimulus plan is meant to fund dubious special interest policy initiatives of environmental activists and should immediately be jettisoned, says Deneen Borelli, full-time Fellow with the Project 21 national black leadership network.
"It's outrageous that taxpayer money is slated to be used to fund the agenda of environmental special interest groups. These special interest groups are using global warming alarmism to fund dubious projects while discouraging the use of fossil fuels," says Borelli. "If liberal lawmakers really cared about stimulating the economy, they would remove rules and regulations that block the development of more fossil fuels. This would provide good-paying jobs and lower energy costs for Americans. Instead, they appear only interested in using their combined force of money, power and influence to fleece taxpayers of their money and their freedom."
Among the green earmarks in the bill legislation cited by Borelli:
* A $2 billion expenditure for "near zero emissions powerplant(s)." This money apparently will be used to revive the FutureGen coal-fired power plan in Mattoon, Illinois. Federal funding for FutureGen was cut off by the Department of Energy in 2008 due in part to excessive construction costs. Reviving funding has been a goal of Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL), and is included despite past criticism of coal-based power generation by President Obama, Vice President Biden and Energy Secretary Stephen Chu.
* $600 million set aside to purchase new hybrid vehicles for federal employees. While there is no documented need for the replacement of vehicles in the federal motor pool, hybrid vehicles have been criticized for performance, cost, safety and the environmental risks created through the production and disposal of their batteries.
* In a December 6, 2008 address, then-President-elect Obama called for a "massive effort" for “replacing old heating systems and installing efficient light bulbs" in federal buildings. The stimulus bill would earmark $6 billion to address this by, among other actions, changing the use of conventional incandescent light bulbs to riskier compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs), which pose a risk of mercury poisoning if broken.
Borelli added: "Lawmakers are cramming a feel-good energy and environmental agenda into this so-called stimulus bill. Investing in FutureGen, hybrid vehicles and light bulbs will only stimulate the special interest groups that are inflating the 'green bubble' that could be the next thing to threaten our nation's economic stability."
Project 21, a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research, has been a leading voice of the African-American community since 1992. For more information, contact David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or project21@nationalcenter.org, or visit Project 21's website at www.project21.org/P21Index.html
As a followup to this press release, Tom Borelli will be a guest on the G. Gordon Liddy national radio broadcast on Friday, January 16, at 10:30 AM Eastern. _____
So Was Barbarossa, Buddy, But It Doesn't Mean We Approve of It
"'The fact that we got this coalition to coalesce around a set of choices I think is impressive,'" said Jeffrey R. Immelt, chief executive of General Electric." -Coalition Agrees on Emissions Cuts, Steven Mufson, Washington Post, January 15, 2009
More on our take on rich executives lobbying Congress to raise energy prices on poorer people so they can get richer still here. ____
At Energy and Commerce Hearing, House Conservatives Call CEOs to Account
Looks like conservatives on the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee are calling turncoat corporate CEOs to account on the Hill today:
From Stephen Power's account on the Wall Street Journal's Environmental Capital blog, as posted there by Keith Johnson:
The Waxman era begins: The first congressional hearing of 2009 on climate change got off to an acrimonious start Thursday, as House Republicans blasted a group of corporate CEOs and environmental groups for staging a press conference instead of appearing before the House Ènergy and Commerce Committee to answer lawmakers’ questions about their ideas for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The Republicans also vowed to hold members of the US Climate Action Partnership accountable for their own use of fossil fuels, by demanding they explain to the committee whether they traveled to Washington by corporate aircraft and how much fuel they used.
“Be prepared for a battle,” Illinois Republican John Shimkus said at the start of the hearing by the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Mr. Shimkus vowed to “hold accountable” any Democrats from coal-abundant and petroleum-producing states who vote in favor of legislation to cap greenhouse gas emissions and set up an emissions trading system in which companies would have to buy permits allowing them to pollute.
Mr. Shimkus and other Republicans called such legislation, which is favored by President-elect Barack Obama, “a shell game designed to hide” the true costs of regulation from consumers...
Good, good, good.
Using Congress for profiteering is reprehensible; doing it in the name of conservation while flying in on corporate jets to lobby for disproportionately-higher energy costs on lower-income and minority populations makes it doubly so.
I'm not at the hearing, but who wants to bet they have it heated nice and toasty on this bitterly cold global warmy January day?
The only creature comfort the conspirators will be missing is a collection of puppies for the CEOs and the liberal Congressmen to kick on their way out of the hearing room (or so I assume).
We issued a press release on this expensive nonsense earlier this morning:
Energy Bubble, Anyone?
Henry Waxman Gives Public a Look at the Corporate-Congressional Alliance that Threatens to Raise Energy Prices in Pursuit of Private Profit
Thursday's first hearing of the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee since Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) ousted Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) as chairman is drawing criticism from the National Center for Public Policy Research, which says the hearing illustrates how powerful corporate interests are working with influential special interests and with the liberal majority in Congress to use government to enhance private profits at great cost to economic growth and liberty.
The hearing will, according to the committee's announcement, "present the perspectives of members of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership ('USCAP'), a coalition of over 30 businesses and nongovernmental organizations that has called for Congress to pass legislation to address the climate change threat."
"Today's hearing on the U.S. Climate Action Partnership exposes the dangers posed by the new political economy," said Tom Borelli PhD, director of the Free Enterprise Project at the National Center for Public Policy Research. "The alignment of corporations, special interest groups and liberal members of Congress aiming for this legislative goal is frightening. The housing bubble was born from an alliance of similar interest groups and now we are about to repeat the same mistake with energy policy."
Corporate members of USCAP are trying to profit from a government-mandated "cap and trade" anti-global warming policy by selling so called carbon credits from reductions in greenhouse gases. Under cap-and-trade, emissions of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, would be limited by the federal government. Companies that are over their emission allotment will be forced to purchase credits from another company that is below its allowance.
Under a cap-and-trade policy, companies would be forced to raise energy prices to reduce their emissions. This would unleash a series of adverse economic consequences and hardships for Americans, as the National Center's Vice President David Ridenour noted in a recent article in Investor's Business Daily:
* A study by the National Association of Manufacturers projected that emissions caps, similar to those rejected earlier this year by the U.S. Senate calling for a 63% cut in emissions by 2050, would reduce U.S. gross domestic product by up to $269 billion and cost 850,000 jobs by 2014.
* According to a study conducted by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the restrictions could raise gasoline prices by 29%, electricity prices by 55% and natural gas prices by 15% by 2015.
* A 2007 report by the Congressional Budget Office, examining the costs of cutting carbon emissions just 15%, noted that customers "would face persistently higher prices for products such as electricity and gasoline. Those price increases would be regressive in that poorer households would bear a larger burden relative to their income than wealthier households would."
"The alignment of corporate and government agendas for the so called "social good" is eerily similar of the warnings in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged which described the unraveling of capitalism" said Deneen Borelli, a full-time Fellow with the National Center for Public Policy Research-sponsored African-American leadership network Project 21.
"Pursuing legislation that will raise energy prices in the middle of a recession is economic suicide. It exposes the inability of these CEOs to connect the dots between economic growth and their future earnings," added Tom Borelli. "Let's not forget USCAP corporate membership reads like a who's who list of corporate losers; AIG and Lehman Brothers were founding members and General Electric stock is trading at multiyear lows. Ford, Chrysler and GM are also members -- need I say more?" said Tom Borelli.
"Unfortunately for shareholders, the USCAP CEOs, like their banking industry colleagues, have executed poor risk management regarding the impact of cap-and-trade on their businesses. While banking CEOs thought real estate prices could only go up, USCAP CEOs somehow think there is no downside risk to high energy prices and handing over more power to government bureaucrats. They also think the environmental special interest groups are their friends. That's incredibly naïve," Tom Borelli said.
"We know for a fact that some USCAP CEOs have not analyzed the impact of cap-and-trade on their business. In response to my question about the company's participation in USCAP at the Caterpillar shareholder meeting in 2007, CEO James Owens admitted he did not conduct a cost benefit analysis of cap-and-trade on his business. Shareholders should be outraged over such incompetence," said Deneen Borelli.
"ConocoPhillips CEO James Mulva has also not done his homework," said Tom Borelli. "ConocoPhillips has made a significant investment in Canadian oil sands, which release about three times the amount of carbon dioxide than traditional oil. Since cap-and-trade will increase the cost of carbon emissions, Mulva is lobbying to increase the cost of his investment. In addition, his USCAP partner Natural Resources Defense Council is taking legal action to block the processing of the oil sands at a ConocoPhillips refinery."
"Finally, if General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt is so concerned about the state of the planet," Tom Borelli Continued, "why was he selling electricity infrastructure equipment to Iran? Nuclear Iran poses a much greater threat than carbon emissions."
America doesn't need cap and trade and it doesn't need a carbon tax. Any look at the sorry state at the USCAP portion of America's business community, however, makes clear that of the two, cap and trade is worse, because it pits the profit interests of big business directly against the pocketbook interests of the little guy. ____
Rumor has it that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is re-introducing his massive federal land control bill.
The National Center for Public Policy Research polled African-Americans on the legislation. 52% oppose the legislation while only 37% support it.
As our vice president, David Ridenour, noted when the poll was released:
This is a key test of whether liberal politicians listen to African-Americans who cast 95% of their votes for Barack Obama and accounted for nearly one-quarter of all of President-elect Obama's votes. Black Americans don't want more land locked up if it means restricting energy development and home construction, driving up the price of both. And that's precisely what this bill would do.
The Omnibus Public Lands Management Act, an amalgamation of more than 100 bills that would place new restrictions on energy exploration, home construction, and business activity, has been scheduled by Harry Reid (D-NV) for a vote during this week's special lame duck session of the Senate.
The bill would restrict use of millions of additional acres of land, both public and private, through the creation of new National Heritage Areas (a program creating de facto federal zoning), new wilderness area designations, and management practices that would clear the way for special protections for so-called "view scapes," "sound scapes," and even "smell scapes."
The National Center also helped Americans for Tax Reform gather signatures for a coalition letter to the U.S. Senate on this issue that ATR spearheaded, a PDF of which can be found here.
Addendum, January 12, 2009: The bill was brought to the Senate floor Sunday, January 11, and adopted 66-12. ____
Carol Browner, the latest Clinton administration retread to be tapped by Barack Obama, will serve in the newly created and still undefined role of White House ‘energy czar.’ If her statements earlier this year are any indication, she also will serve as court jester...
Husband David has an op-ed in today's Washington Times as well as other papers on what a cap on greenhouse gas emissions would due to our economy.
An excerpt:
When our economic bus is teetering at the edge of a cliff, it's a bad time to throw on some extra weight.
Yet government-mandated restrictions on carbon emissions would do precisely that, adding enormous additional weight to an economy already reeling. This additional weight shouldn't just be thrown from the bus -- it should be thrown under it.
Most econometric studies agree that restricting greenhouse-gas emissions would slow our already sluggish economy.
A study by the National Association of Manufacturers projected that emissions caps similar to those rejected earlier this year by the U.S. Senate calling for a 63-percent cut in emissions by 2050, would reduce U.S. gross domestic product by up to $269 billion and cost 850,000 jobs by 2014.
The Heritage Foundation estimated such restrictions would result in cumulative GDP losses of up to $4.8 trillion and employment losses of more than 500,000 a year by 2030.
Other studies suggest smaller economic costs: Duke University's Nicholas Institute estimates a GDP loss of $245 billion by 2030 while the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates a GDP drop of $238 billion to $983 billion.
Sharp emissions restrictions would also push the costs of energy and other consumer products higher. According to a study conducted by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the restrictions could raise gasoline prices 29 percent, electricity prices 55 percent and natural-gas prices 15 percent by 2015.
The people most vulnerable to such price increases are the poor. A 2007 report by the Congressional Budget Office examining the costs of cutting carbon emissions just 15 percent noted that customers "would face persistently higher prices for products such as electricity and gasoline. Those price increases would be regressive in that poorer households would bear a larger burden relative to their income than wealthier households would." Indeed, the lowest quintile income group would pay nearly double what the highest quintile income group would, as a proportion of income, pay in increased energy costs.
And it appears that all this economic pain would be an utterly meaningless gesture. Patrick Michaels, former president of the American Association of State Climatologists, who is now with the Cato Institute, says reducing U.S. emissions 63 percent would prevent a mere 0.013 degrees Celsius in warming. With emissions from China, India and other developing nations growing at breakneck speed, even this modest benefit would be completely erased.
Some argue that we should undergo this pain anyway to set an example for others to follow. The European Union tried that and now, apparently, they're throwing in their collective recycled-material towel... Read it all here.
What Greenhouse Gas Restrictions Could Do to Our Economy
Writing in Investor's Business Daily today, David Ridenour says, "When our economic bus is teetering at the edge of a cliff, it's a bad time to throw on some extra weight."
He's talking about government-mandated restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions and what they could do to our economy.
The Root Features Project 21 Commentary on Green Policies Hurting Blacks' Bottom Line
By David Almasi:
As cooler weather approaches, there are indications that it is going to be both a cold and expensive winter. Scientifically-monitored sunspot activity and the wise Farmer's Almanac both predict it will be cooler than normal, and the federal government is predicting the cost of heating a home will be a lot higher.
Already earning less than the average American household, black and brown households will take the biggest hit unless something is done - now and over the long-term - to bring down energy prices.
Project 21 Deneen Borelli has a new commentary that was published today on The Root, a black-focused web site jointly operated by The Washington Post and Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. of Harvard University.
Deneen points out how policies promoted by radical environmentalists and their political allies on Capitol Hill are keeping us from tapping into America's rich natural resources and freeing our nation from foreign energy dependence:
Failing schools, crime and single-parent households are just a few of the challenges facing urban communities. Now, thanks to radical environmentalists and their supporters, a bunch I like to call "Club Green," they must face soaring energy as well...
Despite the hype about wind power and boasts about other renewable energy sources, 85 percent of our nation's energy comes from fossil fuels. Energy from renewable sources such as wind and solar only currently provide about 7 percent of our power and cannot replace fossil fuels anytime soon.
In its September 2008 report, the federal Energy Information Agency predicted a 25 percent rise in heating oil prices and a 17 percent rise in natural gas prices this winter as well as a 9.5 percent projected increase in electricity costs in 2009. Adding to that, gasoline still hovers near $4 a gallon, and the public demands more domestic energy production. A recent Rasmussen poll of likely voters found that 67 percent supported new offshore fossil fuel exploration.
Our nation is blessed with an abundant supply of natural resources. The problem is that Congress, at the demand of Club Green, blocks access to these resources at the peril of families.
This post was written by National Center for Public Policy Research Executive Director David Almasi. To send comments to the author, write him at info@nationalcenter.org. Please state if a letter is not for publication or if you prefer that it be published anonymously.
Project 21 members and staff have been published in the Washington Times' op-ed page several times recently. Fans of the group may wish to click on one or more of the following:
"Speed-Limit Myths" - Project 21 chairman Mychal Massie takes on Senator John Warner of Virginia's trial balloon favoring a federal mandate to lower speed limits. After explaining who/what really would benefit from such a policy (hint: not the environment, but it involves something green), Massie suggests that "it might be better if Mr. Warner just drove off into the sunset. If only he could go a little faster."
"History is the Final Judge" - Project 21 member Ak'Bar A. Shabazz asks, "if we disregard the calls for freedom and democracy in places such as Tibet, where are we placing ourselves as it relates to world history?," and quotes Martin Luther King, Jr., saying "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."
"Property Rights" - Project 21 research associate Reece Epstein examines the government's use of eminent domain power in a predominately black city to take choice land from small businesses in order to sell it to large ones. He says, "Self-professed champions of the poor don't help when they oppose eminent domain reform. Doing so simply allows government to take from one and give to another - at the expense of communities - just to rake in tax dollars."
"Let Them Eat Cake" - Project 21 member Kevin L. Martin calls on Congress to allow more oil drilling, saying "There may be a day when we all have electric cars, but the one I have right now doesn't have a plug, solar panel or hydrogen converter. It takes gasoline. While I don't object to the possibility of alternative energy sources in the future, I know that most Americans own cars that need gas and live in homes that are powered at least in part by coal. When the elites stifle access to plentiful power, the financial burden is a lot smaller for them. They can afford to pay more for a hybrid car and rave about getting better gas mileage. They can also feel better about their indulgences when they buy imaginary 'carbon credits' that give them the moral authority to use more energy than they want to allow the masses. Like Marie Antoinette, they think the rest of America can 'eat cake' like they can. Sadly, we can't."
"The Civil Rights Shakedown: Myth or Reality?" - Project 21 fellow Deneen Borelli takes a look at shakedown allegations against Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and describes her own effort to urge a corporate board not to be part of such a process. Deneen wrote, in part, "Frustrated by what appears to me to be a long history of Mr. Jackson and Mr. Sharpton using semi-subtle campaigns to pressure corporations to donate, I spoke up at the JPMorgan shareholder meeting. After Mr. Jackson spoke, I took his place at the microphone and asked Mr. Dimon and his board: 'Will there ever be a day where you will stand up and say 'No' to Mr. Jackson and to his demands and messages of victimization and divisiveness? This is the United States of America, and this is not the 1960s. People should be hired based on their talents and they should be retained based on their results. There should not be color-coded hiring in the United States.' Shareholders clapped. But, unlike Mr. Jackson's, my question went unanswered."
"Gaining Access with Identification" - Project 21 research associate Reece Epstein turns the Voter ID debate into a civil rights issue -- but maybe not in the way you think: "The bottom line is that someone without proper identification is out of step. And those who want to keep them there are out of line."
"Black America is Still Not Free" - Project 21 research associate Reece Epstein reviews the new book "Sweet Release: The Last Step to Black Freedom" by psychologist Dr. James Davidson, Jr.: "...although he criticizes liberals, Davidson is quick to note he is no conservative. He writes: 'My behaviors and ideas [are] anything but conservative. Trying to improve one's social and economic lot by rejecting traditional societal and black community standards for achievement seemed antithetical to [being] conservative.' The apolitical goal of Sweet Release is to create advancers: 'What you seek is simply not in the 'hood. It never has been, and it never will be... We must now move beyond our own remaining chains, beyond the mental barriers that keep so many of us constrained in our thoughts and deeds.'"
"Governance drives this crisis" - Project 21 associate and Initiative for Public Policy Analysis executive director Thompson Ayodele asks, "Hunger is an everyday problem in Africa. What can be done about it?," and answers, in part: "For one thing, a better governmental infrastructure and incentives can stimulate production if done right. Anything that would dampen competition, and thus lower the incentive to produce, should be avoided. When these programs are instituted, they must be administered with professionalism and transparency."
"Too few Watts: 'Segregated News' is Not the Answer" - Project 21 chairman Mychal Massie isn't too thrilled about former GOP Congressman J.C. Watts' plans to create a black news television channel: "...the question begging an answer is what exactly constitutes 'black news.' There are things that happen to black people in black communities that don't really have an impact on the rest of America, but that doesn't mean they should be provincial to black America. News happening in America is American news, and it should be everyone's concern."
"Jesse Jackson Outrage Strategy: No Dough, No Go?" - Project 21 staff director David Almasi and research associate Justin Danhof wonder why Jesse Jackson never challenged XM Satellite Radio for alleged racial insensitivity for a gold tooth ad similar to one run by Toyota which Jackson did protest. They ask: "Remember when Jesse Jackson challenged XM Satellite Radio for its racist advertising? Probably not, since it never happened. Why he didn't is the question." Could it be because Toyota has more money? _____
Media Flocks to Gore Speech on Energy; Mostly Ignore His Use of Gas-Guzzlers to Get There
Americans for Prosperity video shot outside Gore's speech
Apparently complacent about criticism from the Tennessee Center for Policy Research that his family's energy use at his Nashville home is more than 19 times greater than the average American household's, Al Gore has committed conspicious energy consumption once again.
In Washington D.C. Thursday to deliver yet another speech warning Americans about global warming caused, Gore believes, by excessive use of fossil fuels, Gore handed yet more evidence to critics who believe he's a hypocrite.
He did so by traveling to his speech in what almost certainly was an unnecessary entourage of three luxury gas-guzzling vehicles -- two Lincoln Town Cars and a Surburban SUV -- one of which was kept idling outside for twenty minutes, apparently to keep the interior cool for the driver, Mrs. Gore and the Gores' adult daughter.
We know this because the free-market group Americans for Prosperity took a video camera to the speech to film not only the Gore family's vehicle choices, but to interview Gore acolytes who declined sponsors' advice to walk, ride a bike or take public transportation to the speech. (You can see the group's very funny four-minute video online here -- my favorite part is the woman who tries to claim a taxi is public transportation.)
Gore's speech received a significant amount of media attention. I surveyed articles from major news sources (except for the Huffington Post, I excluded opinion columns) to see how many journalists covered Gore's decision to take three luxury gas-guzzlers to a speech decrying the use of fossil fuels.
Here's what I found in the first eleven news stories about this listed on Google News:
Dina Cappiello, Associated Press, "Gore: Carbon-free electricity in 10 years doable" - no mention of gas-guzzlers, but nice quote from Gore: "The answer is to end our reliance on carbon-based fuels..."
Steven Mufson, Washington Post, "Gore Urges Fast Energy Makeover" - ended the article by mentioning it and added a cute anecdote: "As people filed out of the hall, three black cars waited for Gore and his entourage. A young woman walked up to the first one, a Lincoln Town Car, and stuck a handwritten note on the windshield: 'I wish I were a Prius.'"
Zachary Coile, San Francisco Chronicle, "Gore challenges America to switch to renewable electrical energy by 2018" - no mention of luxury cars, but a nice quote from Gore about their use: "We're borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the planet. Every bit of that's got to change."
J.S. McDougall, Huffington Post, "Gore's Goal: What You and I Can Do" - no mention of Gore's energy use, but this comment by the author: "...we Americans will have to think small -- not globally, not nationally, not even statewide. This begins with your town. Your house. Your car. You. And me." (Not Gore?)
David Stout, International Herald Tribune, "Gore asks U.S. to abandon fossil fuels" - no mention of Gore's three luxury vehicles, but Stout noted that Gore was "no doubt aware that his remarks would be met with skepticism in some quarters." (I wonder why?)
CNN, "Energy crisis threatens U.S. survival, Gore says" - no mention of cars, but did mention the Gores' high energy use levels at home: "Gore's return to the political arena has drawn increased scrutiny, particularly of his energy use. In 2007, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research chastised Gore for 'extravagant energy use' at his Nashville, Tennessee, mansion. Gore subsequently has installed solar panels, a geothermal heating and cooling system, compact fluorescent light bulbs and other energy-saving technologies in his home." CNN gets credit for mentioning the Tennessee Center for Policy Research's research about Gore last year, but CNN reported the Gores' installation of alternative energy sources without noting that the Gores' home energy use went up an additional ten percent this past year despite these installations.
Of eleven news articles, one mentioned the gas-guzzlers Gore used to get the to event and one mentioned that Gore has been criticized for "extravagant energy use" at home.
Final tally (I'm counting CNN): two mentioned Gore's personal behavior; nine did not.
Cross-posted at NewsBusters, where comments are enabled. ____
To burst the oil bubble, just use a drill, says David Ridenour, in an op-ed piece at least two dozen newspapers (another example here and here) have now run on their commentary pages.
A version of the piece (various papers have edited it differently) follows:
To burst the oil bubble, use a drill.
If Congress stands up to special interests and develops domestic energy sources, oil prices will tumble.
The U.S. has ample oil reserves.
For over a decade, environmentalists have prevented drilling for oil and natural gas in the "1002 Area" of Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), an area in the refuge's Northern Coastal Plain set aside by President Carter and Congress for possible oil development in 1980.
At 1.5 million acres, the 1002 Area is less than 8% of the refuge. An Energy Information Agency estimates the amount of recoverable oil there at 10.4 billion barrels.
President Bill Clinton vetoed a bill authorizing drilling in ANWR under environmentalist pressure in 1995. Had he not done so, nearly 1.4 billion barrels of oil would likely be flowing from ANWR this year. That's equal to about one-quarter of our current imports.
Subsequent efforts to open as little as 2,000 acres to oil and gas exploration have failed repeatedly, but Senator Pete Domenici is trying again this year.
If you think oil prices are inflated, just get a load of environmentalists' claim that opening 2,000 acres to development would have a devastating impact on ANWR. The acreage involved is just 0.01% of ANWR's total.
The U.S. also has enormous oil and gas reserves in the Outer-Continental Shelf, but environmental lobbyists have succeeded in keeping these resources locked away, too. There's been a moratorium on offshore drilling since 1981.
The Department of Interior's Minerals Management Service estimates that areas covered by the moratorium contain nearly 19 billion barrels of recoverable oil, equal to about four years of U.S. oil imports.
But don't look for the Outer-Continental Shelf to be opened anytime soon. A U.S. House Appropriations subcommittee rebuffed an effort to lift the 27-year moratorium this month.
The U.S. also has considerable reserves of oil shale - a sedimentary rock that produces oil when heated. The Bakken Formation, located in North Dakota and Montana, contains between 3 and 4.3 billion barrels of previously undiscovered, recoverable oil while the Green River Formation, located in Wyoming, Utah and Colorado contains between 500 billion and 1.1 trillion barrels of recoverable oil. The midpoint estimate for the Green River Formation alone is three times Saudi Arabia's known reserves.
Environmentalists, predictably, argue that increased drilling would do nothing to reduce fuel prices.
Their first argument is that it will take a decade for these areas to produce oil.
But while production may be years away, the decision to drill will immediately burst the oil bubble created by investor speculation. Speculation has contributed significantly to the price of oil: Mary Novak of the economic forecasting firm Global Insights estimates that if speculation were eliminated, a barrel of oil would cost just $75-$80.
Why do many investors flock to oil? Because two American reserves are going in opposite directions. The Federal Reserve has produced a veritable gusher of dollars, driving down the dollar's value, while our oil reserves are kept below ground, keeping oil prices high. As long as investors expect demand for oil to grow and supplies to remain the same or shrink, they'll continue using oil as a hedge against the devaluing dollar.
Drilling would change all that.
The greens' second argument is that OPEC will respond to our domestic oil development by reducing oil output, keeping prices high.
The reality is that sustained high prices aren't in OPEC's long-term interest, as it provides incentives to oil development projects that wouldn't exist otherwise. The Rand Corporation estimates crude oil prices would have to be between $70 and $95 per barrel for oil development in Green River to be profitable. Once developed, it will become a permanent competitor.
The facts are clear: Developing domestic sources of oil will help end the energy crisis.
And with two-thirds of Americans now in favor of such drilling, it's time to act.
Note: Links to the Sacramento Bee, Fresno Bee and Raleigh News & Observer that appeared in this piece originally were removed when they went dead; a link to the Duluth News Tribune was added. _____
Hill opponents of oil development in the Out-Continental Shelf and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge say no more land for oil exploration until the oil companies drill in the 68 million acres in leases they already hold. Drilling hasn't begun in these areas because oil hasn't been found in sufficient quantities to make drilling economic.
The call to drill in areas where there may be no oil at all is only slightly more moronic than their last big idea -- drilling for fuel in corn fields.
America Only Oil-Producing Nation That Severely Limits Its Production
National Center for Public Policy Research Research Associate Reece Epstein has a letter to the editor in today's D.C. Examiner newspaper, written in response to an opinion column by Irwin Stelzer entitled, "No Quick Energy Fixes, Despite Officials’ Promises."
Says Reece:
Irwin Stelzer is rightly disappointed in politicians who "prefer to keep Alaska safe for caribou rather than tap our own oil reserves." America remains the only oil-producing nation that severely limits its own production.
Federal law currently prohibits tapping about 10 billion barrels of oil in the barren tundra of Alaska and another 16 billion barrels off the coasts. It also prevents utilizing the largest known oil shale deposits in the world, which are found in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming.
The RAND Corporation estimates that between 500 billion to 1.1 trillion recoverable barrels of oil can be found in the shale of the Green River formation, making it the largest known fossil fuel deposit in the world.
With demand for energy skyrocketing and supply subject to incessant instability, we have a clear imperative to develop this untapped and readily obtainable supply of American oil.
Reece Epstein Research Associate The National Center for Public Policy Research
Husband David will be a guest on the G. Gordon Liddy Show today about 11:30 AM Eastern, talking about ethanol.
Interested folks can listen live on the Internet or hear the show anytime over the next couple of weeks by downloading a podcast of this broadcast from the show's website.
Poll Shows Little Public Enthusiasm for Lieberman-Warner
About 30 minutes ago, the National Center for Public Policy Research released the poll questions and cross-tabs from our new poll surveying public attitudes toward paying the costs of the Lieberman-Warner cap and trade global warming bill.
The poll did not tell respondents that Lieberman-Warner, if adopted and implemented, would not have a measurable impact on planetary temperatures, although that is true. We told respondents that Lieberman-Warner is designed to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions and the likely consumer costs of Lieberman-Warner in two areas, gasoline prices and electricity prices. (We obtained the cost data from several econometric studies done by major institutions independent from us and independent from each other.)
The poll results suggest that Lieberman-Warner is not particularly popular with the public, as even the lowest estimated costs were higher than a strong majority appears willing to pay.
Our press release with more detail is posted below. Those of you who love analyzing polls can look at the exact text of the poll questions here (pdf) and the poll cross-tabs here (pdf).
Washington, DC - Just as the U.S. Senate is poised to vote on the Lieberman-Warner America's Climate Security Act (S. 2191), a new poll finds an overwhelming majority of Americans oppose the higher energy costs that Lieberman-Warner would impose.
The poll, conducted by the Public Opinion and Policy Center of the National Center for Public Policy Research, found that 65% of Americans reject spending even a penny more for gasoline in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The number rejecting raising gas prices in an effort to combat global warming has increased by 17 percentage points -- or 35% -- in just over two months. The National Center conducted a similar survey in late February.
An additional 13% oppose spending more than 5% more for gasoline to attempt to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The Lieberman-Warner plan would increase petroleum prices by 5.9% by 2015, according to Duke University's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions. Other studies indicate the plan would push prices even higher.
The survey also found that 71% of Americans reject spending more for electricity, with 16% opposing spending any more than 12% extra for electricity.
A study commissioned jointly by the American Council for Capital Formation and the National Association of Manufacturers estimated that the Lieberman-Warner proposal would increase electricity prices by between 13% and 14% by 2014. Other econometric studies indicate that Lieberman-Warner would push electricity costs even higher.
When gasoline and electricity price increases are taken together, 90% of Americans reject Lieberman-Warner plan's costs -- even the low-range of the projected costs.
"As incredible as it sounds that 90% of Americans reject the Lieberman-Warner plan's costs, the actual number who reject it may be even higher. Electricity and gasoline price hikes are only two of the costs of this proposal," said David A. Ridenour, vice president of the National Center for Public Policy Research. "The price for food and consumer goods would also be pushed higher and many Americans would lose their jobs. You can't merely accept energy price increases and opt out of all the other costs."
"As amazing as it is that 90% of the public agrees on anything," added Ridenour, "is the fact that all three of the major prudential candidates -- Senators Clinton, McCain and Obama -- favor a proposal the public appears to be almost unanimously against."
The America's Climate Security Act (S. 2191), which could be voted on in the U.S. Senate as early as June 2, would place strict caps on the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that power plants, fuel refiners and producers, chemical producers and other manufacturers may release into the atmosphere. The proposal -- frequently referred to as a "cap-and-trade" plan -- would also establish an emissions trading system that would permit companies that emit fewer greenhouse gases than they are allowed to sell the excess portion to companies that exceed their allowances. The Act's sponsors estimate that the bill would reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by up to 63% by 2050.
Respondents to The National Center's survey were provided with a brief description of what America's Climate Security Act would do and then asked how much more they would be willing to pay for gasoline and electricity to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.
They were given the choice between "nothing more," percentage increases correlating to estimates from three different econometric studies of Lieberman-Warner, and a percentage increase just below the most optimistic of these projections.
The poll used studies from Duke University's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, and from the American Council for Capital Formation and the National Association of Manufacturers.
The National Center used all three studies because the findings of the studies varied widely.
"There's been a robust debate over which economic analysis is accurate. Proponents believe that lower-range cost estimates strengthen their case for approval of the plan, while opponents believe higher-range cost estimates strengthen the case against it. That debate turns out to be irrelevant," said Ridenour. "Americans oppose Warner-Lieberman no matter which study is closer to the mark. Just 6% would be willing to accept the gasoline and electricity price increase ranges forecast by any of the three studies."
Opposition to higher gas prices was particularly pronounced among minorities, with 72% of blacks and 72% of Hispanics opposed to paying any more for gasoline to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This compares with 64% of whites opposing paying more.
Hispanics led the way in opposition to higher electricity prices, with 77% opposed to spending any more for electricity, compared to 71% of whites and 69% of blacks saying they were not willing to spend more.
The poll was conducted by Wilson Research Strategies, which surveyed 802 people who are likely to vote in the 2008 general elections. It included 37% registered Democrats, 30% Independents and 29% Republicans. It has a margin of error of +-3.46% at 95% confidence interval.
The National Center is a non-profit, non-partisan educational foundation based in Washington, DC and established in 1982. It is a truly independent foundation, with approximately 99% of its funding coming from some 72,000 active donors.
NCPPR's Almasi Comments on CAFE in National Review
In the May 5 print edition of National Review, Fred Schwarz described how the catalytic converter was perfected just as automakers faced potentially crippling federal emissions requirements. Liberals cite this as proof that all that is needed to make technological breakthroughs happen is to give industry a swift regulatory kick in the pants, but this particular development was a happy coincidence. Had a breakthrough - discovered after many frustrating failures - not come when it did, the auto industry could very well have been devastated.
Schwarz sees the development of the catalytic converter as another step in the march of science that will, in time, bring about the changes some people hastily want to mandate.
Schwarz’s article is great but for the one line. Schwarz calls newly-mandated Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards "feasible." Hardly. They are most likely to make cars and trucks smaller, lighter and subsequently more dangerous in the short-term before (in the minds of the regulatory crowd) the long-hidden formula to fuel cars with water is unveiled.
National Center for Public Policy Research Executive Director David Almasi explained one of the problems with increased CAFE standards in a letter to the editor that now has been printed in the May 19 National Review (print edition). David's letter is reprinted in its entirety below:
Fred Schwarz is right to predict that science will achieve regulatory goals at its own pace ("Machina ex Machina," May 5).
He also says that "[current] CAFE standards are quite feasible, and while opponents have criticized them on economic grounds, at least no engineering miracles will be required." True - but the biggest problem with the Corporate Average Fuel Economy system concerns safety, not economics or engineering. By historical precedent the easiest way for automakers to meet higher fuel-efficiency requirements is to make cars and trucks smaller, lighter and inherently less safe. A 2002 study by the National Academy of Sciences estimated between 1,300 and 2,600 accident-related deaths each year can be attributed to CAFE standards.
It’s also the case that these new CAFE standards will raise the price of new vehicles large enough for family use by thousands of dollars. If you don’t like paying an extra buck a gallon for gasoline, just wait until you have to spend an extra ten grand for the car.
Biofuel-Fueled Food Crisis Requires Dramatic Response, Senator Says
Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) has delivered a floor speech calling for "'dramatic' action to address global food difficulties caused in part by current biofuel mandates."
Inhofe said, in part:
Recently, the world has been confronted with irrefutable evidence that our current biofuels mandates are having massive and potentially life threatening consequences.
Once again, we are reminded how restrictive government mandates and ill-advised bureaucratic meddling produce unintended consequences. Trying to centrally manage and “plan” a global food distribution network and economy through clumsy, unrealistically high mandates has been a proven failure.
An April 28 article on our current biofuel mandates in the National Review by Phil Kerpen and James Valvo detailed the mindset of bureaucratic planners.
Each new generation of central planners believes the previous generation wasn't smart enough. Yet central economic planning is forever doomed to failure since the approach itself limits human freedom, ingenuity, entrepreneurship, and innovation.
To put it into simpler terms: As Ronald Reagan once said, “The more the plans fail, the more the planners plan.”
Congressional Energy Diet Also Reduces Waistlines and Pocketbooks (Don't Even Ask About Global Warming!)
From David Almasi:
The liberal leadership in Congress came to power in 2006 saying they had a solution to rising gas prices. Did that solution involve prices continuing to go up and taking the cost of food with them?
When Americans decided to clean up the environment in the 1950s, there was a lot of trust in the American people. There were regulations to clean things up, of course, but voluntary action, anti-littering campaigns and appeals to our better nature went a long way.
But the trust factor has been eviscerated, and it's to no one's benefit.
As National Center Senior Fellow Dana Joel Gattuso points out in a Townhall column:
Congress doesn't trust consumers to make the right decision when it comes to selecting the right source of energy. Congress knows better. That's why legislation out of Capitol Hill is all about weaning us off oil and putting us directly on a "renewable energy" diet.
Witness the energy tax bill the House passed in February that slaps $18 billion in taxes on oil production to fund wind, solar, biofuels, and other "alternative" sources. Witness the new energy law passed in December mandating that Americans increase the use of ethanol and other biofuels at the pump to 36 billion gallons by 2022, up from 7 billion gallons required now. And witness the new farm bill that gives corn growers $10.5 billion in subsidies over the next five years, no matter how fast the price of corn rises - which, incidentally, has gone from $3.50 a bushel to a record $5.50 over the past three months.
Commenting directly on mismatched concerns over abundance and price when it comes to food and energy, Dana writes:
Even with oil topping $109 a barrel [on April 15], it is still relatively abundant. As the U.S. Geological Survey reports, there are 3 trillion billion barrels of oil reserves still available globally. For perspective, since the first automobile rolled off the assembly line, we've consumed only one trillion barrels.
Conversely, ethanol and other biofuels are extremely limited resources requiring enormous amounts of water, energy, and land otherwise used for growing food. The new energy law's requirement that Americans use 15 billion gallons of corn for fuel by 2015 - that doesn't include the other 21 billion gallons to come from non-food sources like switchgrass and corn husks - will consume an astounding 30 million acres of cropland. That means unless the mandates are repealed, more than a third of our corn crops will be diverted from food to fuel in just seven years.
U.S. policies forcing biofuel usage already are creating food shortages in third world countries, elevating food prices to historic levels.
It's worth it to combat global warming, right? Wrong.
Two independent studies in the journal Science report that the clearing of forests, grasslands, and other ecosystems throughout the world to grow corn, soybean, and other food-for-fuels will double greenhouse emissions over the next 30 years. Because plants and soil hold enormous quantities of carbon, destroying existing plants and tilling the soil releases the stored carbon.
Still in a mood to celebrate Earth Day this coming Tuesday?
To read Dana's commentary in its entirety, click here.
Washington Post Treats Insipid Barbara Boxer Comment as News; Ignores Bigger Story Behind Bush's Global Warming Speec
I already knew Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) wasn't a clear thinker, but I still had to chuckle at her quote in today's Washington Post article on climate change:
The president's plan to have America stand by while greenhouse gases reach dangerous levels and threaten America and the world is worse than doing nothing -- it is the height of irresponsibility.
What's the difference between "standing by" and "doing nothing"?
Why, no difference at all.
Even more amusingly, this was probably a prepared quote taken from a statement issued by her office rather than something she said off the top of her head.
Speaking of this Washington Post article, by Juliet Eilperin: It quotes six people taking the alarmist, hurt-the-economy position on global warming, and not one who believes either that alarm is unnecessary or that the hurt-our-economy approach is the wrong way to go. An acknowledgment is made that "senior GOP lawmakers... continue to reject mandatory curbs on emissions," but that's it. No reason why is given. Nor is a reader told that not all of Bush's critics are found on the anti-energy left, and what their take on all this might be.
There's a news story to be found in why President Bush took the action that he did, but the Post had no inclination to cover that story.
A insipid statement by Barbara Boxer was a higher priority. ____
LISTEN LIVE to David Ridenour Discuss Gas Tax Poll on WBAL in Baltimore
From David Almasi:
National Center vice president David Ridenour will be a guest of talk show host Ron Smith on WBAL in Baltimore this afternoon (March 20) at approximately 3:45pm Eastern. David and Ron will discuss the National Center's new poll that indicates most people do not want to pay 50 cents or more extra for a gallon of gas in order to pay for the cost of proposed greenhouse gas emissions. The full press release on this poll can be read by clicking here.
You can listen to the interview live by going to the WBAL web site. Look for the "Listen Live" button on the left-hand side of the home page, just below the station logo.
Americans Cool to Action Against Global Warming, New Poll Finds
Today the National Center for Public Policy Research will release the results of its new nationwide poll asking Americans how much more they would be willing to pay in gasoline taxes to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and fight global warming.
Our press release follows; you can go straight to the poll results here (pdf):
Americans Cool to Global Warming Action, New Poll Finds Nearly Half Wouldn't Be Willing to Pay Even a Penny More for Gasoline; Opposition to Taxes Especially Strong Among Minorities
Washington, D.C.: Forty-eight percent of Americans are unwilling to spend even a penny more in gasoline taxes to help reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, according to a new nationwide survey released today by the National Center for Public Policy Research. The poll found just 18% of Americans are willing to pay 50 cents or more in additional taxes per gallon of gas to reduce greenhouse emissions. U.S. Representative John Dingell (D-MI), chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, has called for a 50 cent per gallon increase in the gas tax.
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, transportation accounts for 33% of the U.S.'s man-made carbon dioxide emissions. Over 60% of these emissions - or about 20% of all U.S. carbon dioxide emissions - result from burning gasoline in personal automobiles.
"With one-fifth of all U.S. CO2 emissions coming from light trucks and cars, any serious effort to significantly reduce U.S. emissions would have to encourage fuel conservation in personal automobiles," said David A. Ridenour, vice president of the National Center for Public Policy Research. "But almost half of all Americans oppose spending more for gasoline, despite polls indicating wide public concern over global warming. These results suggest Americans' concern may not be as deep as we've been led to believe."
Opposition to increased gasoline taxes was especially strong among minorities, with 53% of African-Americans indicating they are unwilling to pay higher gas taxes in any amount. Eighty-four percent of blacks and 78% of Hispanics opposed paying an additional 50 cents or more for their gasoline.
"It's not surprising that minorities oppose higher gas taxes in large numbers, as such taxes are sharply regressive, harming the economically-disadvantaged disproportionately," said Ridenour. "An extra $300 per year in taxes means little to someone making $100,000 annually. When you're just getting by, it can mean not having enough for food, rent or utility bills."
Voters were told: "Congress is currently considering legislation that would raise the tax on gasoline in an attempt to motivate Americans to conserve fuel and reduce greenhouse gas emissions." They were asked to indicate how much more they'd be willing to pay on top of what they already pay in gasoline taxes. They were given seven choices: nothing, less than 50 cents, 50 cents, one dollar, two dollars, five dollars, eight dollars or more.
Eighteen percent indicated they are willing to pay an additional 50 cents per gallon of gas or more; eight percent indicated they're willing to spend a dollar or more and just 2% said they're willing to spend $2 or more.
"Congressman Dingell's proposal to raise gas taxes by 50 cents per gallon appears to be dead-on-arrival as far as the public is concerned. Even if it wasn't, Dingell's proposal is too modest to encourage any meaningful fuel conservation," said Ridenour. "Europeans routinely pay between $4 and $5 per gallon of gas in taxes and their fuel appetite continues to grow nevertheless. Just 1% of Americans are willing to spend an additional $5 dollars or more. Republicans are willing to do so by a 3 to 1 margin over Democrats."
Opposition to any gas tax hike was strongest in the Great Lakes, home of the automakers and Congressman John Dingell, at 56%, followed by New England (51%) and the Farm Belt (50%).
Opposition grew once respondents were informed that eliminating passenger cars in the United States altogether would only reduce world emissions by a fraction.
Among those who indicated they are willing to pay more for gasoline to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, 58% indicated that they are less willing to do so, and 42% much less willing, when informed their sacrifice would produce little positive results.
"Many global warming polls ask the wrong questions," said Ridenour. "We shouldn't ask Americans if action is needed on global warming, but how much more they’re willing to pay for that action. We need to also ask whether people would still be willing to pay more, given the almost certain futility of it."
The poll was conducted February 24-26 by Wilson Research Strategies, which surveyed 800 registered voters who are likely to vote in the 2008 presidential election. The poll has a margin of error of 3.46% at a 95% confidence interval.
The National Center for Public Policy Research is a non-partisan, non-profit educational foundation established in 1982 that supports commonsense, market-based solutions to environmental problems.
Project 21 Helps Expose Hypocrisy of Environmental Elite in the Third World
From David Almasi:
You may remember Al Gore being unmasked last year by the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, which discovered that Gore's Nashville mansion was using 20 times the amount of energy as an average American home. Additionally, Gore and his celebrity friends are holding nearly annual rock concerts to celebrate their environmental alarmism. And let's not forget all those special flights they take to and from their international conferences, where they moan about the evils of excessive air travel, among other things.
On Tuesday, March 11, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) will begin running a commercial on cable television exposing the hypocrisy of Gore and the environmentalist elite.
CEI's commercial shows that many in the Third World - particularly those in Africa - are literally dying due to a lack of adequate power, and the catastrophe that could result from imposing anti-global warming emissions regulations on power generation in these areas. Forcing these people to go without would be especially galling considering Gore and his ilk are living opulent lifestyles.
To help CEI and show just how much the anti-energy environmentalist elites are out of step with the rest of the world, Project 21 - the National Center's black leadership network - has gathered statements for the press conference from native Africans and black Americans who have seen first-hand how Western elites try to impose their will on others.
Here are some samples of their statements:
Thompson Ayodele, director of the Initiative for Public Policy Analysis in Lagos, Nigeria: "The Nobel Peace Prize, Oscar and an Emmy Mr. Gore has been awarded for his environmental activism will only aid the people of Africa is he melts them down and donates the gold to a relief organization. For him and his colleagues to try to restrict people of the world from obtaining the energy they need in the means that are cost-effective and readily available for them to get it is not humanitarian in any sense of the word."
Project 21's Bishop Council Nedd II: "If it weren't so unsettling it would be funny that it is people such as Al Gore who are behind policies and pressure to restrict the development of pretty much every sort of successful method of energy production. This is inconvenient and costly to us here in the United States, but it can be a matter of life-and-death in a developing country."
Alice Wanja Hinga, RN, a native Kenyan: The people of Africa cannot afford to worry about their carbon footprint when they are focused on making sure they have enough to eat and can remain healthy. If people from outside Africa want to intervene, it should be to make access to things easier, not more difficult. My people ask for assistance, but the strings attached to certain aid are sometimes worse than not accepting anything in the first place."
The CEI press conference will be held in the Murrow Room of the National Press Club (529 14th Street NW, 13th floor) at 10:00 am on Tuesday, March 11. A PDF of the statements can be found here (pdf).
The nation's drive to use more alternative fuel carries a danger many communities have been slow to recognize: Ethanol fires are harder to put out than gasoline ones and require a special type of firefighting foam.
Many fire departments around the country don't have the foam, don't have enough of it, or are not well-trained in how to apply it, firefighting experts say. It is also more expensive than conventional foam.
"It is not unusual to find a fire department that is still just prepared to deal with traditional flammable liquids," said Ed Plaugher, director of national programs for the International Association of Fire Chiefs.
The problem is that water doesn't put out ethanol fires, and the foam that has been used since the 1960s to smother ordinary gasoline blazes doesn't work well against the grain-alcohol fuel.
Wrecks involving ordinary cars and trucks are not the major concern. They carry modest amounts of fuel, and it is typically a low-concentration, 10 percent blend of ethanol and gasoline. A large amount of conventional foam can usually extinguish such fires.
Instead, the real danger involves the many tanker trucks and railcars that are rolling out of the Corn Belt with huge quantities of 85 or 95 percent ethanol and carrying it to parts of the country unaccustomed to dealing with it...
David's op-ed on the many problems with ethanol continues to be picked up by newspapers (since the nine newspapers I mentioned Wednesday, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, the Oakland Tribune, the Alameda Times-Star and the Argus in California have run it), and is generating an unsually high amount of comment emails -- all opposed to ethanol subsidies -- to the National Center for Public Policy Research.
Here's a sample of the letters we're getting:
My husband has been on this bandwagon for years. Ethanol makes no sense in any way.
Our ultra liberal daughter acted as if everybody knew how stupid this whole ethanol aberration was.
We were shocked to find one issue we could agree on.
Yet our congress rolls on mightily filling ADM's pockets and others with cash for destroying food crops and further increasing the worlds hunger problem.
As a right wing Jesus freak, I would like to add it is a sin to burn food when people are starving.
Sharon Milton Norphlet, Ar
Public interest in ethanol -- or, more precisely, public interest in ending ethanol subsidies and mandates -- appears to be greater than I had at first supposed. It won't happen overnight, but perhaps this is an issue on which we can win.
P.S. A bunch more have run it now, but I'll stop listing them all. _____
Rob Johnston, writing at Spiked, takes apart ten myths popularized by British environmentalists against nuclear power.
As many if not all of these myths are promoted here in the U.S., I thought I'd reprint them here, but you have to go to Spiked to see Johnson's case for why they shouldn't be believed.
1) Uranium is running out 2) Nuclear is not a low-carbon option 3) Nuclear power is expensive 4) Reactors produce too much waste 5) Decommissioning is too expensive 6) Building reactors takes too long 7) Leukemia rates are higher near reactors 8) Reactors lead to weapons proliferation 9) Wind and wave power are more sustainable 10) Reactors are a terrorist target
(Speaking of nuclear reactors being a terrorist target, the National Center for Public Policy Research published a study of eight different terrorist-attack-on-nuclear-power-plant scenarios in 2001 by nuclear physicists Gerald E. Marsh and George S. Stanford. The paper, "Terrorism and Nuclear Power: What are the Risks?" can be read online here.) _____
Ethanol. Raises food prices. Hurts the environment. Harms the Poor.
The House of Representatives is set to vote today on an energy bill that would require a seven-fold increase in the use of ethanol over the next 15 years.
However, as National Center Senior Fellow Dana Joel Gattuso reports in a study released today, corn prices already have doubled since last year, in large part because Congress is mandating that food be converted to fuel.
Says Dana, in part:
For the past four decades, food prices have remained fairly stable, lagging far behind inflation. But as the USDA reports, food prices this year are soaring, rising twice the rate of inflation - the highest annual increase in over a decade. Corn prices, which doubled since last year, are close to $4 a bushel. Eggs are up 44 percent from last year, while milk, up 21 percent, has jumped to $3.83 a gallon - the highest retail price since World War Two.
What's driving record food prices? Federal policies mandating more food for fuel are a big factor. Requirements that we use more ethanol over oil for energy use are causing us to divert larger amounts of farmland from food to corn-based fuel, contributing to record food costs. In 2000, we were using a modest 6 percent of our cropland for ethanol production. Last year, that share increased to 20 percent; this year, one quarter of our corn harvest is diverted from food to fuel.
Dana also points out that "producing biofuels leaves a huge ecological footprint, exceeding that of fossil fuels."
Ethanol isn't so great for low-income Americans, either, who already spend about 40 percent of their budget on food.
Dana adds:
None of this will matter, of course, when Congress acts on the energy bill. As is the way of the world in the nation's capital, the powerful agribusiness and ethanol interests will trump science, and Congress will turn a blind eye to the poor's struggle against soaring food prices.
Ethanol. Raises food prices. Hurts the environment. Harms the poor.
Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act Meets Clinton Health Care Plan
Senator Kit Bond (R-MO) has mapped out the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2007.
He calls it "Rube Goldberg meets carbon caps."
I say Kit Bond's Liberman-Warner climate bill chart looks a lot like the complex chart Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA)'s office put together in 1994 to show America what Bill and Hillary Clinton's doomed health care plan looked like.
For Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Cap and Trade, Anyone?
Total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions dropped by 1.5 percent in 2006. The total reduction in U.S. carbon dioxide emissions was 1.8 percent.
By comparison, carbon dioxide emissions by participants in the European Union's Emissions Trading Scheme (Europe's version of "cap and trade," an emissions-regulation system now under consideration by the U.S. Congress) increased by 0.3 percent in 2006.
The EU's cap and trade program didn't perform as well as its environmentalist proponents hoped it would. The European Union screwed up its cap and trade system's first trading period by handing out too many emissions permits. As a result, emitters had scant financial incentive to make reductions. This was not predictable, as no one familiar with the history of the Twentieth Century could have expected a large intergovernmental bureaucracy to make an economic planning error.
For a succinct report on the 2006 decline in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, read the U.S. Department of Energy's press release here. For a more detailed look at the U.S. greenhouse gas emissions picture, including prior years, go here. For a fuller picture on how well the European Union and its member states are meeting their Kyoto targets, I recommend the European Environment Agency publication "Greenhouse Gas Emission Trends and Projections in Europe 2007," available in English here. _____
Auto Efficiency Standards Change Little; Auto Efficiency Changes Much -- and New York Times Doesn't Notice
Peyton Knight points out that the New York Times editorial page is so enamored by regulation, it has lost sight of reality:
The New York Times is worried that some of the most anti-energy provisions of the anti-energy bill, which Democratic House and Senate leaders are currently trying to finalize, might get scrapped for expediency's sake.
Arguing in favor a significant increase in fuel economy standards for vehicles, the Times notes: "Efficiency standards have changed little in 30 years."
More important than standards, however, is efficiency itself, which has certainly improved over three decades.
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the average fuel economy of the U.S. fleet of passenger cars in 1975 was 13.5 miles per gallon (mpg). In 2006 it was 24.6 mpg - representing a fuel efficiency increase of 82 percent.
In 1975 the average fuel economy for light trucks was 11.6 mpg. In 2006 it was 18.4 - representing a fuel efficiency increase of 59 percent.
Market forces have generated a wide array of choices that fit consumers' preferences. Consumers who prefer a four-door sedan that gets 46 mpg, which is 11 mpg higher than what the Senate energy bill calls for by the year 2020, need only go buy one.
Peyton Knight approves of some of Al Gore’s advice to President Bush:
At former President Clinton's annual "Global Clinton Initiative" summit Thursday, Al Gore called on President Bush to be more like the Gipper. Gore said:
I... call on President Bush to follow President Reagan's example and listen to those among his advisers who know that we need to have binding reductions in CO2.
Gore was trying to employ Reagan's support for protecting the ozone layer in an effort to nudge Bush toward supporting energy restrictions.
Well, the former veep and newest member of the Reagan fan club has some catch-up reading to do. Reagan knew a thing or two about energy policy, seeing as his predecessor had a disastrous one. As such, when Reagan officially announced his candidacy for President in 1979, he assessed energy policy pretty specifically - and pretty specifically repudiated the Gore approach. According to Reagan:
It is no program simply to say, "Use less energy." Of course waste must be eliminated and efficiently promoted, but for the government simply to tell people to conserve is not an energy policy. At best it means we will run out of energy a little more slowly. But a day will come when the lights will dim and the wheels of industry will turn more slowly and finally stop. As President I will not endorse any course which has this as its principal objective.
We need more energy and that means diversifying our sources of supply away from the OPEC countries...
The answer, obvious to anyone except those in the administration it seems, is more domestic production of oil and gas. We must also have wider use of nuclear power within strict safety rules, of course. There must be more spending by the energy industries on research and development of substitutes for fossil fuels.
In years to come solar energy may provide much of the answer but for the next two or three decades we must do such things as master the chemistry of coal. Putting the market system to work for these objectives is an essential first step for their achievement. Additional multi-billion-dollar federal bureaus and programs are not the answer...
It is not government's function to allocate fuel or impose unnecessary restrictions on the marketplace.
Let's see. Invest in new technology, promote domestic production of oil and gas, increase nuclear power and refuse to restrict Americans' energy supply. Sounds about right to me.
National Review Institute Hosts Energy Policy Debate
Peyton Knight contributes coverage of an energy policy and global warming debate sponsored earlier today in Washington by the National Review Institute:
This afternoon, the National Review Institute hosted a panel discussion at the National Press Club on energy production and how it relates to national security. The panel was moderated by CNBC's Larry Kudlow. The panelists were:
- David Hamilton, Director of Global Warming and Energy Programs for the Sierra Club
- Steven F. Hayward, Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute
- Andrew N. Liveris, President, CEO, and Chairman of the Board of Dow Chemical Company
- James Woolsey, Vice President of the Global Strategic Security Division at Booz Allen Hamilton
Larry Kudlow began the panel discussion with a series of questions. Is global warming real? Is it manmade? If it is manmade, how do we solve it? How do we solve it without wrecking our economy?
What resulted was a mostly congenial discussion energy policy. Congressman Diaz-Balart and the Sierra Club's David Hamilton expressed the two most divergent views, recapped below:
*Congressman Diaz-Balart
Congressman Diaz-Balart stressed that no matter what global warming actions we take, above all, we need to make certain that we don't destroy our economy. When Kudlow asked him about Hillary Clinton's proposal for government to take energy company profits and hand them over to companies that invest in renewable energy projects, the Congressman responded pointedly: "That's a bad idea."
He explained that penalizing companies that produce energy would only create a disincentive for energy production. He noted that increasing the tax burden on domestic energy suppliers, as called for in the House energy bill, would result in fewer domestic energy resources and force the U.S. to rely more heavily on energy imports. The congressman pointed out that while government can play a role in steering the energy market, oftentimes, government intervention in the marketplace creates more problems than it solves.
As for increasing domestic energy production, Diaz-Balart prescribed a "federalist" approach. He said that if states like Alaska want to tap their fossil fuel resources, they should be permitted to do so - likewise with coastal states that wish to harvest natural gas from the Outer Continental Shelf.
There is a role for renewable energy and energy conservation to play in increasing U.S. energy security, according to Diaz-Balart. However, he lamented that too often these two issues are promoted as "silver bullets," when, in fact, they are nothing of the sort. He stressed that there are many pieces to the energy puzzle, and that increased rhetoric, particularly from global warming alarmists, won't help solve the problem.
According to him, the new congress isn't doing much to help solve America's energy problem. "So far, all we've done in this new congress is tax energy," he said. "We have [an energy] bill that doesn't create energy."
He did pay global warming alarmists one compliment, however, pointing out that they were "pure capitalists" in the way they raised money and positioned themselves for lucrative research grants.
* David Hamilton
According to the Sierra Club's David Hamilton, man-made global warming is real and we need to pursue solutions to it immediately. Citing the need for government intervention, he claimed, "Global warming is the greatest market failure in the history of economics."
Hamilton says that global warming is occurring so quickly, that in addition to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions a draconian 80 percent by the year 2050, we will also "need to hope that nature will cut us a break."
When asked if he supported increased nuclear power as part of the global warming solution, he laughed, and said "it's funny when free-marketeers talk about reviving nuclear power" because Americans have long since rejected it.
When asked how effective a tax on carbon dioxide emissions might be in reducing CO2 emissions, he replied that he preferred a cap-and-trade approach, whereby companies would be given a government mandated allotment of "carbon credits." Companies could then use those credits emitting carbon, or, if they don't use all of their credits, they could sell them to other companies who have exceeded their allotment. However, he noted a similar scheme instituted under the Kyoto Protocol and the Clean Air Act in the U.S. was flawed because companies were given too many credits and ended up either emitting vast quantities of CO2, or netting easy money from their surplus credits.
Both Hamilton and James Woolsey tried to convince panelists that reducing CO2 emissions could be a help to the economy, as opposed to a hindrance. Larry Kudlow was quick to rebut that CO2 restrictions would "undoubtedly" harm the economy, cause massive job losses and shave as much as four percent off U.S. GDP.
From husband David, some personal observations from the most recent hearing on global warming in Senator Barbara Boxer's committee:
Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman Barbara Boxer said that she wanted to continue hearing from all sides of the global warming debate during her closing statement at yesterday's global warming hearing.
We have reason to doubt her sincerity.
Those who disagree with her particular view of global warming can end up on the receiving end of Boxer's very mean left hook.
Just ask Bob Murray, CEO of Murray Energy Company. During his testimony yesterday, Murray implored the committee to resist regulations that would inflict hardship on American families. He said he was particularly concerned about the welfare of the 3,300 people directly dependent and up to 36,000 indirectly dependent on Murray Energy for their livelihoods.
In response, Chairman Boxer introduced a Columbus Dispatch article, littered with quotes from her trade union movement allies, that questioned the safety record of Murray's mines.
Yes, the article was way off-topic, but the point of introducing it was to impugn Mr. Murray's reputation and undermine his credibility when he spoke of his deep concern for workers.
Senator Boxer had intended to criticize Mr. Murray without allowing him to respond, but he defended his company's safety record, sometimes speaking over her gavel.
There was no pretense of fairness. Had she chosen to be fair, Senator Boxer would have had to mention that Murray Energy received the International Society of Mine Safety Professionals' Leadership Award in 2003.
Murray did much better in the exchange.
Senator Boxer appeared petty, intemperate, and ungracious - certainly not the image the Chairman of the committee that had invited Mr. Murray to testify should project.
Perhaps even she realized this.
Moments before introducing the Columbus Dispatch article, she appeared to be showing it to freshman Senator Sheldon Whitehouse - possibly to convince him to take the lead in character assassination.
If she did, he didn't bite. Whitehouse may be a freshman, but he wasn't born yesterday.
* * *
Senator Joe Lieberman may have his flaws, but he was at least a bit more honest about how open he was to hearing the views of others.
Before departing the hearing, Lieberman said he'd be happy to meet and work with anyone who agrees that global warming is a problem and that devising a cap and trade system is the answer.
In other words, he'll be happy to meet with anyone who shares his view.
We have no reason to doubt his sincerity, at least.
Timothy Carney, writing in the Examiner, on the corporations and lobbyists who are profiteering from Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards, and how much money some of their PACs give to House and Senate candidates:
While ratcheting up CAFE won’t result in miraculously more fuel-efficient cars, it also won’t drive automakers out of business. Instead, it will likely drive them toward the loophole in CAFE — the renewable fuel credit.
To have any chance of meeting the 35-mpg average, carmakers will need to start selling flex-fuel cars that have inflated mpg ratings for CAFE purposes. This will spur consumption of ethanol.
While raising the CAFE requirements would be a stick in the eye of the Big Three (whose political action committees [PACs] in 2006 gave about $1.3 million to federal candidates), it would clearly be a gift to the ethanol industry, whose strong connections to lawmakers are legendary. Ethanol, an alcohol fuel made from grain, usually corn, benefits from special tax breaks, protective tariffs, and federal and state handouts, as well as government mandates.
In the 2006 election cycle, the PAC for Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), the nation’s top ethanol maker, gave $120,000 to federal candidates while fellow agribusiness giant Cargill, No. 2 in ethanol, gave $223,000 to House and Senate candidates.
Also pulling for ethanol -- and thus benefiting from stricter CAFE standards -- is Goldman Sachs, the Wall Street investment firm that has invested $30 million in a Canadian ethanol maker.
Silicon Valley billionaire Vinod Khosla, who recently penned a New York Times op-ed along with former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., calling for even more ethanol mandates, is also heavily invested in ethanol...
Profiteering through the expansion of a regulation that kills a couple of thousand Americans per year can be described in one short phrase: Blood money. _____
From Stella Dulanya and Peyton Knight, a report on the latest Senate global warming hearing:
Yesterday, National Center Senior Fellow Thomas J. Borelli, Ph.D., testified on behalf of the Free Enterprise Action Fund before the U.S Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works hearing entitled, "Examining Global Warming Issues in the Power Plant Sector."
In his testimony, Tom stressed that CEOs who succumb to, or attempt to capitalize on, the political flavor-of-the-day risk harming their company's long-term profitability.
As Tom pointed out:
All too often, today's CEOs make decisions based on appeasing social and political pressure or by trying to generate revenue through legislation that favor their company. In our view, these strategies are shortsighted because they stymie competition, innovation and jeopardize future earnings.
For these very reasons, we strongly oppose cap and trade legislation and company participation in the United States Climate Action Partnership (USCAP). Accordingly, we are in opposition to legislation that sets carbon dioxide limits and allocations for the utility industry.
While the science implicating human activity on global warming is uncertain and speculative, the economic costs of cap and trade legislation are certain and severe. We are deeply concerned about the affect of cap and trade on both the U.S. economy and on the future profitability of the companies in our portfolio - including PG&E and Duke Energy.
Borelli also discussed the specific CEOs, including Caterpillar, Inc.'s James Owens:
Caterpillar's CEO James Owens admitted he did not conduct a cost-benefit analysis of cap and trade before deciding to join USCAP. In addition, he was not aware of the CBO study that found cap and trade regulations would hurt his coal industry customers.
This CEO survey illustrates a complete ignorance about the consequences of global warming regulations on the economy and their businesses.
Caterpillar's participation in USCAP is a perfect illustration of CEO incompetence and deception surrounding cap and trade legislation. Caterpillar's future profit depends on a growing economy and growth in the energy and mining industries. In fact, according to its 10-K filing with the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC), it cites a decline in the economic growth and a decline in the mining industry as a key risk to its business.
Yet inexplicably, Mr. Owens is a member of USCAP, which supports cap and trade regulations that are going to harm the economy and the coal business - a key customer for Caterpillar products. Astonishingly, CEO Owens is lobbying against his own earnings!
Not only is Owens harming his company, he is keeping his shareholders in the dark. Nowhere does Caterpillar disclose to its shareholders that its support of cap and trade can potentially lead to a decline in its business.
Also testifying at yesterday's hearing was Competitive Enterprise Institute Senior Fellow Marlo Lewis, Ph.D., who noted that "regulatory strategies like the Kyoto Protocol... are all economic pain for no environmental gain." Dr. Lewis explained:
Based on favorable scientific assumptions, the Kyoto treaty would avert only 0.07 degrees Celsius of global warming by 2050. That's too small an amount for scientists to detect. Put somewhat differently, Kyoto would postpone the arrival of a 2.6 degrees Celsius warming by five years - from 2095 to 2100...
Similarly, Kyoto would avert only one centimeter of sea-level rise by 2050 and 2.5 centimeters by 2100. It would have no measurable effect on hurricane strength, even if global warming makes hurricanes stronger, and none on malaria-related mortality, even if global warming increases the population risk of exposure to malaria.
However, although Kyoto would provide no discernable climate protection, it would cost the U.S. economy tens to hundreds of billions of dollars in higher energy prices, lost jobs, and lower GDP.
Robert Murray, President and CEO of Murray Energy Corporation, pointed out in his testimony yesterday that "climate change is a human issue," and brought home the harsh reality of inhumane global warming policies, including those that would restrict carbon dioxide emissions:
It seems to us that the leadership of this Congress, with the support of the Majority of this Committee and some Republicans, are intent on helping Mr. Gore and those of his ilk in achieving his unquestionable legacy, which will be the destruction of American lives and more death as a result of his hysterical global goofiness, with no environmental benefit...
We do not know how many members of Congress, and particularly the Democrat Majority, have actually ever created a job for anyone. I have created 3,300 primary jobs and up to 36,000 secondary ones, according to the Pennsylvania State University, from a mortgaged home, and I can tell you that it is virtually impossible to do so today in our great country due to difficulties imposed by our own government at every turn...
Some wealthy elitists in our country and many in our Congressional leadership, particularly from California and New England, and in the entertainment industry, including Mr. Gore, who cannot tell fact from fiction, have demonstrated an Olympian detachment from the impacts of draconian climate change policy. For them, the jobs and dreams destroyed as a result will be nothing more than the statistics and cares of other people. The consequences are abstractions to them. But, they are not to me, as I can name many of the thousands of American citizens whose lives will be destroyed by these elitists' ill-conceived "global goofiness" campaigns.
Gary Witzenburg, writing on The Car Connection, explains the difficulties car manufacturers and consumers will have if Congress adopts into law the Senate Energy Bill's requirement that Corporate Everage Fuel Economy, or CAFE, standards, reach 35 mpg by 2020 for both cars and light trucks:
How hard could it be to move from today's long-established 27.5-mpg car CAFE to 35 miles per gallon, a mere 7.5-mpg (27-percent) increase?
Almost no one outside the fuel-economy business understands how incredibly tough, probably impossible, and enormously expensive that really would be. Even Toyota - whose hybrid-boosted 2006 car and truck CAFEs were 34.4 and 23.7 mpg, respectively - calls the 35-mpg standard "very aggressive" and "difficult to meet," adding that, "the time frame is too soon."
GM says that to bring all vehicles up to 35 mpg - a totally absurd 58-percent increase for light trucks, now at 22.2 mpg - represents a combined 40-percent boost that would cost more than $100 billion, "the greatest regulatory cost ever imposed on a single industry."
The only way it could come even close to happening would be to dieselize and hybridize virtually everything - at an incremental cost (not retail price) of $5000-$8000 per vehicle -and downsize trucks to where they could barely haul the content of a homeless auto worker's shopping cart. New emissions standards are making diesels way more expensive, and there's not enough battery raw material on the planet for an all-hybrid fleet...
...One very knowledgeable engineer who has worked on CAFE for many years says that to meet a 35-mpg CAFE, cars will have to average 38-39 mpg and trucks 25-28 mpg, and achieving those levels will require virtually all of both to be either diesel or gas-electric hybrid. He also points out that EPA uses "harmonic" averaging to emphasize fuel consumption (gallons per mile) rather that fuel economy (mpg), which makes CAFE compliance near-impossible for most to understand. "In CAFE math," he says, "to offset a 25-mpg vehicle to get a 35-mpg average, believe it or not, you need a car at 58.3 mpg, not 45."
...There's no question that we Americans need to consume less petroleum in everything we do (not just driving), for both balance of trade and energy security reasons, and higher fuel prices are already accelerating us down that path. But don't try to sell me the absurd notion that vehicle-emitted CO2, which is directly proportional to fuel consumption, is destroying the planet. Harmless CO2 gas amounts to just 38 of 100,000 molecules of the Earth's atmosphere and 5 percent of so-called "greenhouse" gases, just 3.3 percent of newly-generated CO2 is man-made, and only 14 percent of that comes from cars and trucks.
So let us all support improved fuel economy within the reasonable bounds of what is achievable and affordable. But let us not let auto-unfriendly, technologically ignorant politicians destroy what's left of America 's automotive industry through ridiculously expensive and probably unattainable CAFE requirements. Simply letting gas prices stay high will get it done.
It is amazing to me that a bunch of Senators who can't manage to get a fence built think they know how to engineer cars. ____
The Senate Finance Committee today approved $29 billion in new taxes on the oil industry. Some of the funds will be given to corn growers, who will continue to receive new taxpayer monies as long as the Iowa Caucus lives.
(If the first presidential primary were in Texas, what a different world this would be.)
Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., said the taxes on the large oil companies - most of the provisions exempt smaller producers - "will almost certainly lead to gas price increases" as oil companies pass on the added cost. "You can't raise taxes... by $29 billion and not expect gas prices to increase," he said.
The American Petroleum Institute, the oil company trade group, said in a statement that the taxes "will discourage new domestic production, discourage new investments in refinery capacity and would lead to the loss of good-paying U.S. jobs."
Interestingly, $10.7 billion in new taxes approved were a punitive measure against the oil companies because the Finance Committee is retroactively opposed to oil leasing contracts for the Gulf of Mexico the Clinton-era Interior Department signed with the oil companies in the late 1990s.
The government signs a contract -- and then extorts a $10 billion penalty because it decides later that it doesn't like the terms.
Writing on TownHall.com, our Eric Peters examines the many challenges faced and (so far) surmounted by the Big Three domestic automakers, GM, Chrysler and Ford, in light of what may be their biggest challenge yet: A Senate energy bill that may mandate new corporate average fuel economy, or CAFE, standards at a whopping 52 mpg level.
Eric begins:
There are three ways to find yourself in a deep hole: One is to jump in; another is to fall in. The third is to get pushed.
By an amazing trifecta of bad luck, bad decision-making and bad public policy, the U.S. auto industry finds itself in a deep pit -- with no ladder in sight...
...and ends...
If competitive shackles had not been fixed around the ankles of Detroit's Big Three, it's entirely likely that Ford would not be reeling from the biggest losses in its entire corporate history, that Chrysler would not be in "financial rehab" under the wings of a privately-held equity firm, and GM would not have dropped to a 24 percent market share and second fiddle to Toyota - which just became the world's largest automaker.
This tragedy of events -- and of almost suicidal policy-making -- is still playing out. The Senate is considering increasing CAFE standards to 52 mpg. Senators Mark Pryor (D-AR), Kit Bond (R-MO), Carl Levin (D-MI), and George Voinovich (R-OH) have proposed an alternative -- a 36-mpg standard for cars and 30-mpg for light trucks, a more than 30 percent increase over present levels.
Many -- including the Big Three domestic automakers themselves -- believe a 52-mpg standard could be one blow too many for our beleaguered domestic auto industry to survive. The automakers -- and their union -- support the Pryor-Bond-Levin-Voinovich alternative.
In Detroit these days, all eyes are fixed on Congress.
CAFE Kills, and Then Some: Six Reasons to Be Skeptical of Fuel Economy Standards
Just published in our Ten Second Response e-mail publication series, an examination of problems inherent in automotive fuel economy standards. This week, the Senate is debating an energy bill proposed by Majority Leader Harry Reid that would dramatically raise fuel economy standards to 52 miles per gallon. An alternative, crafted by Senators Carl Levin (D-MI), Christopher Bond (R-MO), Mark Pryor (D-AR) and and George Voinovich (R-OH), would raise standards for cars to 36-mpg and for light trucks, 30-mpg. The floor debate is expected to be contentious; filibusters are possible.
CAFE Kills, and Then Some: Five Reasons to Be Skeptical of Fuel Economy Standards
BACKGROUND: In 1975, Congress enacted Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) regulations to reduce gasoline consumption.
Current CAFE standards require an average of 27.2 miles per gallon (mpg) for cars and 21.6 mpg for light trucks. As part of its debate over the Energy Bill (S.1419), the U.S. Senate is now considering raising CAFE standards to require all passenger cars and light trucks to average 52 mpg. Senators Carl Levin (D-MI), Christopher Bond (R-MO) and Mark Pryor (D-AR) have proposed an alternative increase, which would require a 36 mpg standard for cars by 2022 and 30 mpg for light trucks by 2025.
Auto and truck manufacturers and the United Auto Workers trade union support the Levin-Bond amendment, which would raise standards 31 percent for passenger cars and by 35 percent for light trucks. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Senator John Kerry (D-MA) and others in the Democratic leadership, along with major environmental organizations, support the 52-mpg standard.
An expected reduction in gasoline usage is the most common reason cited for raising CAFE standards. It is not clear, however, that CAFE standards are particularly helpful in reducing gasoline use. Meanwhile, there are significant disadvantages to the standards, especially the harsh -- and very likely unattainable -- 52 mpg level for both cars and light trucks as proposed in the Energy Bill, which the auto manufacturers and the UAW say could possibly be a death knell to the domestic auto industry.
TEN SECOND RESPONSE: CAFE standards already result in the deaths of approximately 2,000 Americans every yea, since smaller cars are less crashworthy. By failing to acknowledge this in their policymaking, Congress has cost thousands of Americans their lives. Now Congress is poised to compound the dangers by raising CAFÉ standards still further -- so much so, it may kill the domestic auto industry itself.
THIRTY SECOND RESPONSE: CAFE standards have little impact on greenhouse gas emissions, and the environmental benefits of increasing CAFE standards are frequently overstated. Their impact on human health is more certain: CAFE standards have resulted in tens of thousands of deaths since their adoption. Furthermore, raising CAFE standards at this time -- particularly to the draconian level of 52 mpg for both cars and light trucks -- would significantly harm auto manufacturing jobs in the U.S., raise vehicle prices, and reduce vehicle choices for families and for those who use vehicles for towing and moving goods.
DISCUSSION: Opponents of increasing CAFE standards raise the following concerns:
1) Increasing mpg reduces the per-mile cost of operating vehicles, which increases the number of miles driven, thus reducing or eliminating any CAFE benefit.
Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren of the Cato Institute explain why this is the case:
Energy efficient appliances reduce the costs of operation. This might not be a big deal when it comes to, say, the television set (we won't watch more TV just because it costs a little less to turn on the set). But for appliances like air conditioners that make all the difference during peak demand periods, energy efficiency reduces the marginal cost of energy services and thus increases -- not decreases -- energy consumption. This is a well-known phenomenon called the 'rebound effect.'
The same goes for automobile fuel efficiency. Environmentalists argue that increasing the miles per gallon of the cars we drive would save more energy than increased drilling could produce. But the data show that fuel consumption goes up whenever automobile fuel efficiency goes up. Nearly all the gains in fuel efficiency disappear once we account for the demonstrable increases in driving that such investments produce.
James Taylor, editor of the Heartland Institute's Environment News, cites supportive data:
[USA Today columnist John] Merline noted people drive their vehicles more when increased fuel economy makes the price per mile cheaper. "The number of miles driven by passenger cars and light trucks climbed 104 percent between 1975 and 2000, according to the Department of Transportation," noted Merline.
A 2001 study conducted by the National Research Council (NRC) reached the same conclusion. According to the NRC, CAFE "reduces the fuel cost per mile of driving, thereby encouraging faster growth in vehicle travel than would otherwise be the case."
"NHTSA neglects the adverse effects from the increased driving induced by the proposal," agreed Randall Lutter and Troy Kravitz in a February 2003 study released by the AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies. "By lowering the costs of driving, NHTSA's proposal increases vehicle miles traveled, thereby boosting traffic accidents and congestion. The increase in the costs of accidents and congestion fully offsets and probably outweighs the social benefits resulting from greater fuel economy."
Writing in the Wall Street Journal in 2001, Kimberly A. Strassel observed, "[s]ince 1970, the United States has made cars almost 50% more efficient; in that period of time, the average number of miles a person drives has doubled."
2) CAFE standards are dangerous. In 2002, the National Academy of Sciences released a report, "Effectiveness and Impact of CAFE Standards 2002," concluding that since CAFE standards were imposed in the U.S. in 1975, an additional 2,000 deaths per year can be attributed to the downsizing of cars required to meet CAFE standards.
In 2001, Charli E. Coon, J.D. of the Heritage Foundation wrote:
The evidence is overwhelming that CAFE standards result in more highway deaths. A 1999 USA TODAY analysis of crash data and estimates from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that, in the years since CAFE standards were mandated under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, about 46,000 people have died in crashes that they would have survived if they had been traveling in bigger, heavier cars. This translates into 7,700 deaths for every mile per gallon gained by the standards.
3) CAFE increases are less likely to reduce gas consumption than are gas tax increases: In a 2002 essay published in the Los Angeles Times, the Cato Institute's William A. Niskanen and Peter Van Doren noted, "since the CAFE standards were introduced, the average fuel economy has increased by 114% for new cars and by 56% for new light trucks, but the U.S. consumption of imported oil has increased from 35% to 52%." Niskanen and Van Doren recommended that if reducing gas consumption is the goal, an increased gasoline tax is more likely to get the job done: "In contrast to a tax on gasoline, CAFE standards are an imperfect and inefficient method of signaling drivers about the true costs of the gasoline that they consume."
The Congressional Budget office took a similar view:
This issue brief focuses on the economic costs of CAFE standards and compares them with the costs of a gasoline tax that would reduce gasoline consumption by the same amount. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that a 10 percent reduction in gasoline consumption could be achieved at a lower cost by an increase in the gasoline tax than by an increase in CAFE standards. Furthermore, an increase in the gasoline tax would reduce driving, leading to less traffic congestion and fewer accidents. This analysis stops short of estimating the value of less congestion and fewer accidents and, therefore, does not draw any conclusions about whether an increase in the gasoline tax would be warranted. However, CBO does find that, given current estimates of the value of decreasing dependence on oil and reducing carbon emissions, increasing CAFE standards would not pass a benefit-cost test.
4) CAFE standard increases will harm domestic automakers and employment in the domestic auto industry. As National Center for Public Policy Research Senior Fellow Eric Peters writes:
The legislation differs from previous fuel economy standards in that it would apply to both passenger cars and "light trucks" -- a category of vehicle that includes pick-ups, SUVs and minivans -- and which has up to now been held to a separate (and less stringent) fuel economy standard of 21.5-mpg vs. 27.5-mpg for passenger cars.
As a result, Markey-Platts [legislation to increase CAFÉ standards] would disproportionately hurt American car companies, which have their profit centers in large pick-ups and SUVs -- while giving a competitive leg-up to imports, which make most of their money selling smaller, inherently more economical passenger cars.
It's much easier to tweak the design of a compact or mid-sized front-wheel-drive passenger car with a four or six-cylinder engine that already gets 32 mpg to the 35 mpg mark than it is to get a full-size, V-8 powered truck or SUV from 20-something mpg to 35 mpg. Thus, the impact of the Markey-Platts bill will hurt American car companies most where they are especially vulnerable -- at a time when they can least afford another legislative knee-capping.
GM, Ford and Chrysler have all posted alarming losses recently, even as the quality and appeal of their vehicles has been on the upswing. Hitting them with a 35-mpg fuel economy edict would have the same effect as sucker punching someone already laid low by the flu.
Furthermore, more stringent CAFÉ standards will make new cars more expensive, which will depress sales generally.
5) Some individuals, families and businesses need the large vehicles a CAFÉ standard increase will tend to drive out of the market for towing or storage capacity or simply to transport their families. Laws requiring parents to transport children -- in some states, children up to eight years of age -- in approved child safety seats effectively reduces available seating in the back seat of most small (and many mid-sized) sedans to two persons. For safety reasons, transporting a third child in the front seat is inappropriate in most vehicles, and is illegal in some areas, making larger vehicles all but mandatory for many families with children.
6) The argument that increasing CAFE standards will reduce global warming is grossly overstated. Even if greenhouse gas emissions due to human activities are significantly, and harmfully, raising global temperatures, which remains a subject of debate, increasing CAFÉ standards would have scant impact. As Charli E. Coon, J.D., of the Heritage Foundation has written:
Nor will increasing CAFE standards halt the alleged problem of "global warming." Cars and light trucks subject to fuel economy standards make up only 1.5 percent of all global man-made greenhouse gas emissions. According to data published in 1991 by the Office of Technology Assessment, a 40 percent increase in fuel economy standards would reduce greenhouse emissions by only about 0.5 percent, even under the most optimistic assumptions.
WHAT OTHERS ARE SAYING ABOUT CAFE STANDARDS:
U.S. Senator Carl Levin (D-MI):
Unfortunately, many people in Washington have a misguided focus on increasing arbitrary fuel economy standards, known as CAFE. Expanding CAFE is a plan for plenty of economic pain but almost no environmental gain. By 2012, the world is projected to produce nearly 32 billion metric tons per year of carbon dioxide. The U.S. contribution to that will be about 6 1/2 billion metric tons. If CAFE standards were increased by 4% per year, as some are proposing, the U.S. contribution would be reduced by only about 5 million metric tons. That’s a measly one-tenth of one percent of the U.S. contribution.
Because of the way CAFE is structured, it is highly discriminatory against U.S. companies and workers. It pushes consumers from U.S. vehicles to foreign-made vehicles that have the same fuel efficiency. With our automakers already facing trade barriers and an uneven international playing field, imposing on them the discriminatory features of the CAFE structure costs America jobs without improving the environment.
UAW President Ron Gettelfinger:
“Consumers want more fuel-efficient cars and we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. But workers are part of the environment too, and drastic proposals which destabilize our industry won’t do anyone much good in the long run.”
Sam Kazman, General Counsel, Competitive Enterprise Institute:
The end result will be enormous hardships, borne ultimately by consumers. We will end up with vehicles that cost more and perform less.
Safety will suffer as well. One of the less publicized findings of the National Research Council's 2002 CAFE study is that the program, through its downsizing effect on vehicles, already contributes to about 2,000 traffic deaths per year. That toll will only get worse if CAFE is made more stringent.
Advocates of higher CAFE duck this issue by claiming that new technologies eliminate the need for a trade-off between fuel economy and safety. This claim is false. If you take the most high-tech car imaginable and add a hundred pounds to it, two things will happen. Its fuel economy will drop, and its crashworthiness will increase. In short, there will still be a trade-off.
Ben Lieberman, Senior Policy Analyst, The Heritage Foundation
Beyond safety concerns, there is also the issue of consumer choice. A variety of smaller but more fuel-efficient models are already on the market for those who want them. In other words, there is no market failure justifying federal intervention. The car-buying public does not want or need Washington stepping in and forcing these smaller vehicles on everyone."
Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute
After dead motorists, the biggest losers from higher standards would be Americans who prefer large vehicles to carry families, equipment, and pets on daily trips or long vacations.
Other major losers would be the domestic car manufacturers, GM, Ford, and Chrysler, who have invested in plants that make large sedans and light trucks, Americans' preference. The industry is already restructuring to try to reduce labor costs; higher CAFE standards would be its nail in the coffin...
If energy security is the rationale for CAFE standards, America needs to increase domestic coal and natural gas production, find out whether potential supplies of oil exist in Alaska, invest in more refinery capacity, and build nuclear power plants. We've done none of these."
The Center for Individual Freedom:
As always, this government folly will result in even higher gas and automobile prices, as well as decreased auto safety, for consumers...
The more fundamental problem with the regulations, however, is that they simply don't work. The CAFE system was imposed in 1975 as a response to the oil embargo, but America today imports an even greater portion of foreign oil than it did then...
On the other hand, these mandates will put American automakers at even greater competitive disadvantage, because Japanese and other foreign competitors will be better able to adapt to the new standards. As it is, the American Big Three are hemorrhaging losses, shuttering manufacturing plants and laying off thousands of American employees.
What a deal -- more losses by the Big Three, more layoffs and higher gas and car prices...
Unfortunately, ailing automakers and gas suppliers simply present too soft a boogeyman, and feel-good environmental platitudes too easy a justification. With the White House apparently surrendering, it is now up to American consumers and voters to resist this counterproductive policy before we suffer additional damage."
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:
National Center for Public Policy Research Fuel Economy Information Center here
Eric Peters, National Center for Public Policy Research National Policy Analysis #556, "No to New Fuel Economy Standards: Consumer Choice, Not Congress, Should Drive Detroit's Decisionmaking," June 2007, available here
Effectiveness and Impact of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards, the National Academies Press, 2002, available http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309076013&page=3 here
Ben Lieberman, Heritage Foundation WebMemo #1506, "S. 1419: Bad News for Any Energy Consumer, June 13, 2007, available here
The Coalition for Individual Freedom's Free My Ride website news center here
United Auto Workers press release, June 15, 2007 available here
Transcript of press conference by Senators Carl Levin (D-MI) and Kit Bond (R-MO) on CAFE standards, June 14, 2007, available here
Gas 'Price Gouging' Bill Helps Politicians, Not Consumers
The House of Representatives-approved gasoline "price gouging" bill will provide no gas price relief to consumers, says Project 21 Fellow Deneen Borelli, in an op-ed published by GOPUSA:
As the summer driving season begins, consumer complaints and media hype over high gasoline prices have compelled political opportunists in the U.S. House of Representatives to pass the "Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act." The Act would punish anyone found guilty of so-called "price gouging." Regrettably, Congress' latest attempt to solve an economic issue is at best shameless political grandstanding and at worst bad public policy that will only lead to higher gasoline prices and more consumer outrage.
The legislation seeks to address the symptom of high prices but not the underlying cause. Gasoline prices are high today because of high crude oil prices, government regulations and refinery limitations, not price gouging. According to the Energy Information Administration, there are approximately 149 refineries in the U.S. delivering gasoline to approximately 168,987 retail stations. Refineries have an enormous responsibility in meeting market demands for gasoline and have specific processes in place when crude oil is received, refined and delivered to retail.
Crude oil prices fluctuate depending on supply interruptions caused by international events, pipeline leaks, natural disasters and, now that summer is approaching, the switchover that many regions must undergo from using gasoline formulated for winter to special "boutique" summer blends in order to comply with environmental regulations. The U.S. hasn't built any new refineries in over 30 years, and existing refineries are running at full capacity. While refineries operate under inflexible capacity limitations, they must also shut down for routine maintenance. This all affects crude oil refining schedules and the available supply of gasoline for retail outlets. The basic law of supply and demand cannot be ignored.
Rather than address these problems, the Act seeks to frighten service station owners into limiting the price they charge their customers for gas, which in turn, could threaten the very ability of service stations to provide gasoline. Independent service station owners are small businessmen and women who incur significant expenses when paying for product and costs passed along by refineries, vendors and distributors, as well as rent, salaries, utility bills and taxes. When service station owners are unable to include a profit margin when setting prices, it can become impossible for them to stay in business. In fact, some service station owners recently refused to sell gasoline because doing so would be a losing proposition. Should the number of service stations decline, longer lines for scarcer product could commence, all leading to even higher gasoline prices.
This legislation slaps an absurdly arbitrary definition on "price gouging," which, coupled with the threat of fines and jail time, could prevent service stations from properly responding to market conditions. Some in Congress and the media thrive on charged terms like "price gouging" that further incite disgruntled consumers, who unfortunately, see individual service stations as the problem.
Apparently, many congressmen want to ignore the findings of recent federal investigations into price gouging. Following the aftermath of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, gasoline prices remained high across the country, so the Federal Trade Commission investigated the issue. The agency found no evidence of price gouging, only the laws of supply and demand.
If Congress was serious about keeping prices low, it would do everything in its power to expand supply (or at least stop choking it off) and permit oil exploration in ANWR, the Outer Continental Shelf and other promising reserves. It would also promote the expansion of refinery capacity to process more crude oil and to allow the free market to determine the price consumers are willing to pay for gasoline. In essence, help by getting out of the way.
Crude oil prices, seasonality, refinery capacity and consumer demand determine the price at the pump. "Price gouging" is a political term used by elected officials to appeal to the public and increase government power over the private sector. Price gouging legislation only fuels politicians' need for more control and publicity, leaving consumers with high gas prices and limited supplies.
Diana Furchtgott-Roth of the Hudson Institute has written a superlative op-ed on the new Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE, standards, that were approved by the Senate Commerce Committee in May.
Among the CAFE facts Furchtgott-Roth shares with her readers:
1) The original CAFE standards resulted in needless deaths: 1,300-2,600 in just one year studied. The standards were first adopted 32 years ago. (Do the math.)
2) Excluding the people who would lose their lives if the new, tougher standards are adopted, the "biggest losers... would be Americans who prefer large vehicles to carry families, equipment, and pets on daily trips or long vacations."
3) Domestic U.S. auto manufacturers (Chrysler, GM, Ford) would be hurt. Says Furchtgott-Roth about Ford: "In the first four months of 2007, Ford sold 570,000 light trucks, but only 300,000 passenger cars. Each F-Series truck makes about $8,000 in profits for the company, whereas Ford loses money on passenger cars."
4) Foreign manufacturers supported by the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers support increasing CAFE standards.
I especially love this part of her piece: "Neither global warming nor energy security require increased CAFE standards, which are both anti-economic and anti-intellectual. They are made for a political system where appearance trumps substance."
Addendum, 6/1/07 Some of the same politicians who support raising CAFE standards also support ill-advised proposals to make so-called "gas gouging" (ill-defined in this post, because it is ill-defined in the legislation, criminal penalties for doing it notwithstanding) a federal crime (see here and here for one of many examples). Yet, high gas prices tend to reduce gas usage, which CAFE standard supporters think is so important, it is worth the loss of several thousand lives per year.
This is literally a life or death issue, but to many leading politicians, life or death isn't as important as getting good media coverage, or appeasing special interests. ____
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=59703f31-be78-45b5-97cd-433c10f647dc)
