Archive for the ‘Climate Change’ Category
Timothy P. Carney: Congress gives your money to T. Boone Pickens
By: Timothy P. Carney
Examiner Columnist | 7/10/09 9:57 AM
T. Boone Pickens, like any good businessman, can read changing economic conditions. While he spent the 1980s as a “corporate raider” and oilman, in this age of Barack Obama and Henry Waxman, he has shifted his focus to lobbyists, feel-good green messages, and technology that depends on government subsidies. The result: Taxpayers will now be subsidizing T. Boone Pickens, a billionaire—and Republicans and Democrats in Congress tell you it’s for your own good.
This week, three senators proposed special tax credits that will subsidize Pickens’ latest business venture, which he calls “the Pickens Plan.” Like his previous undertakings, Pickens has launched his plan as a way to get richer. Unlike his previous undertakings, the Pickens Plan is completely dependent on government subsidies—and this has ingratiated him to politicians and media.
The Pickens Plan, in short, in this: We should get more electricity from windmills and power our cars with natural gas. Pickens happens to be a major investor in windmills and natural-gas cars. Both of these energy sources are heavily subsidized, but not enough for Pickens to profit from them, apparently.
This week, Senators Robert Menendez, D-N.J., Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Harry Reid, D-Nev., at Pickens’ urging, sponsored a bill to double the huge subsidies natural gas cars already receive, and to provide a $100,000 tax credit for the construction of a natural-gas filling station.
Pickens’ company is the leading builder of natural gas fueling stations, and thus the leading beneficiary of this subsidy. [...]
So while our government is running a trillion-dollar deficit, which will lead to tax hikes and inflation that make us and our children poorer, Congress is thinking of creating subsidies and a private tax cut to a man on Forbes magazine’s list of the world’s richest people.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com …
other links to T. Boon Pickens
http://junkscience.com/ByTheJunkman/20081211.html
http://junkscience.com/ByTheJunkman/20080911.html
The Cap-and-Trade Bill Is an Economic Disaster
Fiscal Policy: The House of Representatives is preparing to vote on an anti-stimulus package that in the name of saving the earth will destroy the American economy. Smoot-Hawley will seem like a speed bump.Not since a misguided piece of legislation imposed tariffs that turned a recession into a depression has there been a piece of legislation as bad as Waxman-Markey.The 1,000-plus-page American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454) is being rushed to a vote by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi before anyone can seriously object to this economic suicide pact.
By Investor’s Business Daily
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/06/26/the_cap-and-trade_bill_is_an_economic_disaster_97284.html
The 2009 Energy Bill: Anti-Market and Anti-Consumer
|
On March 31, Chairman Henry Waxman (D–CA) of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and Chairman Edward Markey (D–MA) of the House Energy and Environment Subcommittee introduced draft legislation that includes clean energy investment, energy efficiency mandates, a cap-and-trade program, and protectionist policies that will supposedly help the consumer cope with higher energy prices.[1] Presented as a comprehensive energy bill, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES)[2] offers nothing more than subsidies and mandates for unsuccessful, unproven energy sources coupled with taxes on reliable energy sources that falsely claim to stimulate the economy by investing in clean technology and creating green jobs. This government-centric approach will destroy jobs and drive up energy prices for years to come. Title 1: Clean Energy ACES includes a renewable electricity standard (RES) that requires 6 percent of electricity to come from renewable energy by 2012. This requirement will increase to 25 percent in 2025. A federally mandated RES is proposed only because renewables are too expensive to compete otherwise. In effect, Washington is forcing costlier energy options on the public. Since renewables are lavished with substantial tax breaks, a national mandate will cost Americans both as taxpayers and as ratepayers. Any incentive proposed by government should in truth be read as a handout. Moreover, subsidies are poor policies because they distort normal market forces and encourage government dependence. By subsidizing a portion of the actual cost of a non-competitive project, the government is artificially making it cheaper and distorting the allocation of resources by directing capital away from more competitive projects. Title 1 of ACES also includes incentives to develop cleaner energy technologies and facilitate the transition to a smart grid, as well as authorization for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to take control of building new transmission lines. While upgrading the nation’s electric grid has merit, such a project cannot be approached bureaucratically, nor can it be used as a subsidy to advance renewable energy sources. More efficient grid technology should be an investment made by the private sector, and if upgrading the grid will save consumers money—as Congress purports it will—consumers will respond to price signals and buy it. Although a new grid could help store large amounts of electricity for the first time, which would benefit intermittent sources such as wind and solar power, smart grid investment is not automatically coupled with transmission investment. If companies believe the benefits to such an investment will outweigh the costs, they will make the investment. Instead, any federal policy should focus on removing regulatory barriers to upgrading the grid to allow for more consumer choice and protect private property rights. Title 2: Energy Efficiency ACES includes new energy efficiency standards for new buildings, rebates to low-income families to buy Energy Star-rated manufactured homes,[3] appliances, and transportation.[4] Energyefficiency can be beneficial for consumers, but it rarely does good when Washington tries to force it on them. Energy-efficient appliances and mechanisms will not painlessly lower electricity bills: These measures impose costs, and consumers benefit only if the energy savings outweigh such expenses. Mandatory improvements in efficiency usually raise the purchase price of appliances; sometimes the increase is more than enough to negate the energy savings. In addition, the forced reduction in energy use can result in decreased product performance, features, or reliability, which destroys value for the consumer. The law of supply and demand is perfectly capable of determining the proper balance between energy efficiency and other product attributes. Rigid federal standards give efficiency priority over all other concerns, often to the detriment of families and businesses. Title 3: Global Warming Regulation Although the rest of ACES is bad enough, the most alarming section is the government’s attempt to regulate carbon dioxide. The third title of the bill introduces a "market-oriented" cap-and-trade program that would reduce carbon dioxide by 20 percent below 2005 levels in 2020 and by 83 percent below 2005 levels in 2050. Furthermore, it calls for strict oversight by FERC and calls on the Environmental Protection Agency to use the Clean Air Act to reduce black carbon and hydroflurocarbons. Despite Washington policymakers’ best attempt to call cap-and-trade a market-oriented approach, the reality is that any carbon capping plan is a costly energy tax in disguise—raising energy prices and unemployment with little, if any, environmental benefit. A global warming tax could generate as much as $1.9 trillion in tax revenue over eight years, which amounts to an annual tax of nearly $2,000 on every American household.[5] 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’s study of the Lieberman–Warner cap-and-trade bill found that legislation would result in aggregate real GDP losses of nearly $5 trillion and job losses of 400,000 and 800,000 jobs per year.[6] The targets and timetables in the ACES discussion draft are considerably more stringent than those in Lieberman–Warner and thus would be costlier. Title 4: Transitioning to a Clean Energy Economy Because ACES would put manufacturers at a disadvantage, the last title of the bill attempts to lessen that burden by rebating money to "sectors that use large amounts of energy, and produce commodities that are traded globally" or by having "foreign manufacturers and importers … pay for and hold special allowances to ‘cover’ the carbon contained in U.S.-bound products." The bill also stipulates that if countries reach an international treaty on global warming, the U.S. will provide aid assistance to developing countries for clean technology. In essence, raising the costs on foreign manufacturers and importers is a carbon tariff. As a result, not only will energy costs increase, but now everything Americans import will be more expensive too. Furthermore, imposing a carbon tariff could lead to a trade war among a number of countries on which the U.S. depends for affordable goods. Protectionism begets more protectionism: Other countries will view such measures as unfair and respond by implementing more tariffs. Also, any international carbon reduction plan would likely reverse progress made in the developing world—even with the proposed U.S. aid for clean technology. Developing countries’ prosperity relies heavily on free trade. Exporting goods in which countries hold a comparative advantage is critical to their economic growth, just like it is to America’s. Counting the number of green jobs created by a transition to a clean energy economy while ignoring the jobs destroyed by any such shift ignores the legislation’s net effect on employment: Support for renewable energy would likely cost more jobs than it creates. For example, subsidies for wind and solar energy would, at least from the narrow perspective of the wind and solar industries, create new jobs as more of these systems are manufactured and installed. But the tax dollars needed to help pay for them cost jobs elsewhere, as would the pricey electricity they produce. Proponents of renewable energy, however, argue that these energy sources create more jobs per kilowatt hour and thus are a good investment.[7] But this logic should not be the measuring stick for implementing new energy sources—it proves only that clean energy sources are an inefficient use of human capital and these resources could be more beneficial in other sectors of the economy. Not the Right Prescription for an Ailing Economy The architects of ACES argue that the bill will create millions of clean energy jobs and help Americans save on energy costs, but in reality it will do just the opposite. Using taxpayer dollars to invest in inefficient energy sources while artificially driving up the costs of reliable energy with a cap-and-trade program will only cause more economic pain for the consumer—with no environmental benefit to show for it. Nicolas Loris is a Research Assistant and Ben Lieberman is Senior Policy Analyst in Energy and the Environment in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. [1] "Chairmen Waxman, Markey Release Discussion Draft of New Clean Energy Legislation," House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce, March 31, 2009, at http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php? [2] The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (discussion draft), 111th Cong., 1st Sess., at http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_11 [3] For more information on Energy Star-rated manufactured homes, see Energy Star, "Getting Started with ENERGY STAR Qualified Manufactured Homes," at http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=bldrs_lenders_raters.pt_ [4] "Chairmen Waxman, Markey Release Discussion Draft of New Clean Energy Legislation. [5] Calculations by The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis. [6] William W. Beach, David W. Kreutzer, Ben Lieberman, and Nicolas D. Loris, "The Economic Costs of the Lieberman–Warner Climate Change Legislation," Heritage Foundation Center for Data Analysis Report No. 08-02, May 12, 2008, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/cda08-02.cfm . [7] American Wind Energy Association, "What Are the Factors in the Cost of Electricity from Wind Turbines?" at http://www.awea.org/faq/cost.html (April 1, 2009.) |
Pollution Controls Cause Polar Ice Melting
The below article coincides with what Omaha’s new science adviser Holdren;
The concept of using technology to cool the climate is called geoengineering. One option raised by Holdren and proposed by a Nobel Prize-winning scientist includes shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun’s rays.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/6365586.html
Remember how Polar bears are drowning because the ice caps are melting? Remember how the ice caps are melting because of CO2 emissions? Well new research at NASA suggests that the ice caps may be melting not because of CO2, but because of the elimination of aerosol particle emissions. In other words, pollution controls put into place in the 70’s could be the cause of the polar ice caps melting.
New research from NASA suggests that the Arctic warming trend seen in recent decades has indeed resulted from human activities: but not, as is widely assumed at present, those leading to carbon dioxide emissions. Rather, Arctic warming has been caused in large part by laws introduced to improve air quality and fight acid rain.
Dr Drew Shindell of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies has led a new study which indicates that much of the general upward trend in temperatures since the 1970s – particularly in the Arctic – may have resulted from changes in levels of solid “aerosol” particles in the atmosphere, rather than elevated CO2. Arctic temperatures are of particular concern to those worried about the effects of global warming, as a melting of the ice cap could lead to disastrous rises in sea level – of a sort which might burst the Thames Barrier and flood London, for instance.
Shindell’s research indicates that, ironically, much of the rise in polar temperature seen over the last few decades may have resulted from US and European restrictions on sulphur emissions. According to NASA:
Sulfates, which come primarily from the burning of coal and oil, scatter incoming solar radiation and have a net cooling effect on climate. Over the past three decades, the United States and European countries have passed a series of laws that have reduced sulfate emissions by 50 percent. While improving air quality and aiding public health, the result has been less atmospheric cooling from sulfates.
On NASA’s site , Shindell continues:
In the modeling experiment, Shindell and colleagues compiled detailed, quantitative information about the relative roles of various components of the climate system, such as solar variations, volcanic events, and changes in greenhouse gas levels. They then ran through various scenarios of how temperatures would change as the levels of ozone and aerosols — including sulfates and black carbon — varied in different regions of the world. Finally, they teased out the amount of warming that could be attributed to different climate variables. Aerosols loomed large.
The regions of Earth that showed the strongest responses to aerosols in the model are the same regions that have witnessed the greatest real-world temperature increases since 1976. The Arctic region has seen its surface air temperatures increase by 1.5 C (2.7 F) since the mid-1970s. In the Antarctic, where aerosols play less of a role, the surface air temperature has increased about 0.35 C (0.6 F).
That makes sense, Shindell explained, because of the Arctic’s proximity to North America and Europe. The two highly industrialized regions have produced most of the world’s aerosol emissions over the last century, and some of those aerosols drift northward and collect in the Arctic. Precipitation, which normally flushes aerosols out of the atmosphere, is minimal there, so the particles remain in the air longer and have a stronger impact than in other parts of the world.
http://www.notoriouslyconservative.com/2009/04/remember-how-polar-bears-are-drowning.html
Fire And Ice
By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, April 08, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Climate Change: An ice shelf in Antarctica begins to break apart, and the global warming hysterics immediately blame human activities for the crackup. Is it possible that there is some other cause?
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=324083725218923
Forecast for Atlantic hurrican Activity 2009
This is yet another reason to question the validity of Global worming fiction.
EXTENDED RANGE FORECAST OF ATLANTIC SEASONAL HURRICANE ACTIVITY AND U.S. LANDFALL STRIKE PROBABILITY FOR 2009
We foresee average activity for the 2009 Atlantic hurricane season. We have decreased our seasonal forecast from our initial early December prediction. We anticipate an average probability of United States major hurricane landfall.
(as of 7 April 2009)
By Philip J. Klotzbach1 and William M. Gray
http://hurricane.atmos.colostate.edu/Forecasts/2009/april2009/apr2009.pdf
Green Jobs cost more than regular ones, (Surprise)
The Economist ^ | April 2 2009 | Staff
“THINK of what’s happening in countries like Spain, Germany and Japan where they’re making real investments in renewable energy,” Barack Obama instructed Americans earlier this year. “They’re surging ahead of us, poised to take the lead in these new industries. This isn’t because they’re smarter than us, or work harder than us, or are more innovative than we are. It’s because their governments have harnessed their people’s hard work and ingenuity with bold investments—investments that are paying off in good, high-wage jobs.”
Mr Obama is right that many governments, not least his own, are spending heavily in a bid to create green jobs. Countries as diverse as Canada, China, France and Indonesia have vowed to cultivate greenery in an effort to fertilise their wilting economies. Religious leaders, trade unionists and the secretary-general of the United Nations, among others, have hailed green stimulus as a cure for the world economy’s ills. After all, it holds out the hope of a triple benefit: a return to economic growth, deliverance from global warming and an escape from dependence on imported fuels, all wrapped up in an appealingly high-tech package.
There is no shortage of studies on green jobs that support this optimistic view. The Center for American Progress, a think-tank with close ties to Mr Obama’s administration, called last year for the government to spend $100 billion on various green initiatives. The reward, it calculated, would be 2m jobs.
(Excerpt) Read more at economist.com …
Climate Change
We, the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated. Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now.1,2 After controlling for population growth and property values, there has been no increase in damages from severe weather-related events.3 The computer models forecasting rapid temperature change abjectly fail to explain recent climate behavior.4 Mr. President, your characterization of the scientific facts regarding climate change and the degree of certainty informing the scientific debate is simply incorrect.
MIT scientists baffled by global warming theory, contradicts scientific data
Trendwatch
By Rick C. Hodgin
Thursday, October 30, 2008 09:55
Boston (MA) – Scientists at MIT have recorded a nearly simultaneous world-wide increase in methane levels. This is the first increase in ten years, and what baffles science is that this data contradicts theories stating man is the primary source of increase for this greenhouse gas. It takes about one full year for gases generated in the highly industrial northern hemisphere to cycle through and reach the southern hemisphere. However, since all worldwide levels rose simultaneously throughout the same year, it is now believed this may be part of a natural cycle in mother nature – and not the direct result of man’s contributions.
Obama Campaign Embraces Job-Killing EPA Power Grab
Americans for Prosperity Condemns Rogue Agency’s Proposed Regulation of Greenhouse Gases
WASHINGTON – Comments this week by Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama’s senior energy advisor Jason Grumet offer a peek into the type of job-killing regulations an Obama Administration would champion to satisfy environmental extremists, the grassroots free-market group Americans for Prosperity (AFP) said today. If elected president, Sen. Obama would support proposed Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations aimed at restricting greenhouse gas emissions as “dangerous pollutants” via manipulation of the 1990 Clean Air Act. The more than 1,000-page-long proposed regulations would affect over 30 regulatory programs and would cover an extensive list of items – from planes, trains, trucks, and farm equipment, to home lawnmowers and portable power generators.
“The EPA’s power grab is nothing short of outrageous,” said AFP President Tim Phillips. “No presidential administration should support efforts by unelected bureaucrats to reach into our homes and businesses with economy-crippling regulations.”
The proposed regulations would extend the Clean Air Act into nearly every aspect of American life, and includes plans to establish “Grass Mileage Standards” for home lawnmowers, require permits for farms with as few as 25 cows, and impose speed controls on the U.S. trucking fleet. AFP is leading the grassroots campaign to oppose the proposed regulation, which has so far included op-eds, talk radio interviews, and the submission of more than 1,500 comments from average citizens for the advance notice of proposed rulemaking on the EPA regulation.
Grumet said Obama would support the limits for power plants and manufacturers. However, once the EPA has made an “endangerment finding,” enforcement of the new restrictions by EPA regulators is not “discretionary.” This means extending the regulatory reach to include a whole list of items is only a few lawsuits away for environmental extremists, said AFP.
“The cost to consumers and businesses from these regulations would be staggering – and it would be imposed without so much as a vote of Congress,” said Phillips. “Support for this regulation is nothing short of putting environmental extremism of American jobs.”
The architect of the Clean Air Act, Rep. John Dingell, has criticized the proposed regulations for exploiting the original intention of the legislation. “We are looking at the possibility of a glorious mess being visited upon this country … This is not what was intended by the Congress and by those of us who wrote the [Clean Air Act] legislation,” Dingell wrote.
EPA’s power grab would cover planes, trains, and automobiles. Even your home lawn equipment.
Use this URL to submit comments to the EPA, if you haven’t already:
http://capwiz.com/americansforprosperity/issues/alert/?alertid=11825801&type=CU&show_alert=1
–Tom
For Immediate Release – October 21, 2008
Contact: Annie Patnaude, (202) 349-5880
Americans for Prosperity (AFP) is the nation’s premier grassroots organization committed to advancing every individual’s right to economic freedom and opportunity. AFP believes reducing the size and scope of government is the best safeguard to ensuring individual productivity and prosperity for all Americans. AFP educates and engages citizens in support of restraining state and federal government growth, and returning government to its constitutional limits. For more information, visit www.americansforprosperity.org
# # #
