Archive for August, 2009

EPA refuses congressional request for analysis of climate bill

August 7, 2009

Click here for the story.

John Kerry to coal: Surrender or face destruction

August 7, 2009

Sen. John Kerry (D-Green Mafia) has made an offer that, he says, the coal industry should not refuse.

As reported by Carbon Control News, Kerry said at a hearing earlier this week:

“All these companies that are sort of stating exaggerated opposition to [cap-and-trade] based on very unrealistic modelling need to stop and consider what their models are going to look like when this is regulated by the EPA without any allowances and without any auction, because then they’re in for a very different economic world… [EPA regulation of CO2 is] going to happen if we don’t do something up here, and I hope people hear that message loudly and clearly. They are smarter and better to come to this table and work with us as they did with the House to find a solution here. It may not be ideal, but the alternative I would think for most of those companies is going to be they will be regulated… “If you care about coal in America—and there are plenty of senators up here and plenty of states that do, and reasons to do so—then the only solution is not to sit there and wait to be regulated… [The only way coal can continue to be used is if it can be made to burn cleanly]… And the only way to burn it clean is to have clean coal technology. And the only way to do that is through this kind of a mechanism where you have $10 billion dollars over 10 years going into that clean coal technology. If it’s regulated by EPA, there’s no money going into clean coal technology.”

Translation: If the coal industry stops fighting the green mob, it will get taxpayer welfare for the rest of its days. If it doesn’t, the green enforcer (EPA) will rub it out.

Next: Cash-for-refrigerators

August 6, 2009

Actually, it’s already happening. The New York Times reported (Aug. 4):

Last week, New Jersey began a statewide program that offers residents a $30 rebate by recycling eligible refrigerators or freezers. Old refrigerators and freezers in Vermont also fetch $30, under a program begun last month.

But is the taxpayer subsidy necessary? According to the Times:

Utilities commonly estimate that homeowners can save up to $150 a year on their electricity bill by dumping their old refrigerator or freezer. Old refrigerators, made prior to 1990, also use three times as much electricity as new ones, the utilities say.

Obama wants tort lawsuits over CO2

August 6, 2009

President Obama apparently intends for the proposed EPA endangerment finding on CO2 to spur tort claims against emitters.

According to Carbon Control News (Aug. 4):

Industry attorneys are calling on EPA to include language in its final greenhouse gas (GHG) endangerment finding banning GHG tort claims filed in response to the finding, fearing the document may cause a flood of new common law damages claims that the attorneys say could impose significant transaction costs even if eventually dismissed.

But the industry call may face hurdles as the Obama administration has already signaled in federal rules and other policy documents its reluctance to preempt such litigation.

Perhaps the upside is that the rest of us will be able to sue Al Gore for breathing.

Inhofe on Senate climate bill: ‘We will defeat it’

August 6, 2009

Hearing Statement: Climate Change and Ensuring that America Leads the Clean Energy Transformation
August 6, 2009

Contact:

Matt Dempsey Matt_Dempsey@epw.senate.gov (202) 224-9797

David Lungren David_Lungren@epw.senate.gov (202) 224-5642

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JAMES M. INHOFE

Climate Change and Ensuring that America Leads the Clean Energy Transformation

August 6, 2009

Madame Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today. This is the last hearing on climate change before the August recess, so I think it’s appropriate to take stock of what we’ve learned.

Madame Chairman, since you assumed the gavel, this committee has held over thirty hearings on climate change. With testimony from numerous experts and officials from all over the country, these hearings explored various issues associated with cap-and-trade-and I’m sure my colleagues learned a great deal from them.

But over the last two years, it was not from these, at times, arcane and abstract policy discussions that we got to the essence of cap-and-trade. No, it was the Democrats who cut right to the chase; it was the Democrats over the last two years who exposed what cap-and-trade really means for the American public.

We learned, for example, from President Obama that under his cap-and-trade plan, “electricity prices would necessarily skyrocket.”

We learned from Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) that cap-and-trade is “a tax, and a great big one.”

We learned from Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) that “a cap-and-trade system is prone to market manipulation and speculation without any guarantee of meaningful GHG emission reductions. A cap-and-trade has been operating in Europe for three years and is largely a failure.”

We learned from Sen. Dorgan (D-N.D.) that with cap-and-trade “the Wall Street crowd can’t wait to sink their teeth into a new trillion-dollar trading market in which hedge funds and investment banks would trade and speculate on carbon credits and securities. In no time they’ll create derivatives, swaps and more in that new market. In fact, most of the investment banks have already created carbon trading departments. They are ready to go. I’m not.”

We learned from Sen. Cantwell (D-Wash.) that “a cap-and-trade program might allow Wall Street to distort a carbon market for its own profits.”

We learned from EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson that unilateral U.S. action to address climate change through cap-and-trade would be futile. She said in response to a question from me that “U.S. action alone will not impact world CO2 levels.”

We learned from Sen. Kerry (D-Mass.) that “there is no way the United States of America acting alone can solve this problem. So we have to have China; we have to have India.”

We learned from Sen. McCaskill (D-Mo.) that if “we go too far with this,” that is, cap-and-trade, then “all we’re going to do is chase more jobs to China and India, where they’ve been putting up coal-fired plants every 10 minutes.”

In sum, after a slew of hearings and three unsuccessful votes on the Senate floor, the Democrats taught us that cap-and-trade is a great big tax that will raise electricity prices on consumers, enrich Wall

Street traders, and send jobs to China and India-all without any impact on global temperature.

So off we go into the August recess, secure in the knowledge that cap-and-trade is riddled with flaws, and that Democrats are seriously divided over one of President Obama’s top domestic policy priorities.

And we also know that, according to recent polling, the American public is increasingly unwilling to pay anything to fight global warming.

But all of this does not mean cap-and-trade is dead and gone. It is very much alive, as Democratic leaders, as they did in the House, are eager to distribute pork on unprecedented scales to secure the necessary votes to pass cap-and-trade into law.

So be assured of this: We will markup legislation in this committee, pass it, and then it will be combined with other bills from other committees. And we will have a debate on the Senate floor.

Throughout the debate on cap-and-trade, we will be there to say that:

According to the American Farm Bureau, the vast majority of agriculture groups oppose it;

According to GAO, it will send our jobs to China and India;

According to the National Black Chamber of Commerce, it will destroy over 2 million jobs;

According to EPA and EIA, it will not reduce our dependence on foreign oil;

According to EPA, it will do nothing to reduce global temperature;

And when all is said and done, the American people will reject it and we will defeat it.

Thank you, Madame Chairman.

# # #

Americans to spend $15K per home, business replacing ‘perfectly good’ electricity meters, says Texas Instruments

August 5, 2009

Texas Instruments smart-meter marketing director Mark Buccini told SmartGridToday that,

Legislation is driving replacement [of electricity meters]. Perfectly good mechanical meters are being replaced [with smart meters]… In the past, a mechanical meter wasn’t replaced until it wore out. That changes the opportunity for us…

Buccini estimated that 500 million meters will be replaced in the next decade at a cost of $750 million per year — that’s $15,000 per meter change.

That’s just the beginning. Buccini said that “adjacent markets” — i.e., in-home displays, programmable thermostats, direct response (DR) units, distributed generation and plug-in vehicle technology] almost doubles the market to $1.4 billion per year.

Smart meters and adjacent technology are little more than a way for the government to monitor your electricity use and then to ration electricity to you via your local utility. It is an expensive and needless insult to Americans.

EIA gaslights America on Waxman-Markey

August 5, 2009

The Obama administration — via the Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) — issued an economic analysis of Waxman-Markey concluding that the bill will cause electricity prices to increase only slightly through 2020.

While we’re still reviewing the report, here are a couple things you ought to know about it:

  • The EIA report appears to show merely that if no true CO2 control is put in place, electricity prices won’t increase. But as soon as true CO2 control is implemented electricity prices could more than double.
  • The report is chock full of demonstrably faulty assumptions and misleading economics. Assumptions include that nuclear power and carbon capture and storage are easily and inexpensively implemented on a large scale. The misleading economics portion includes the notion that Congress can impose more than $6 trillion of annual costs on energy production and use, and energy users won’t notice.

The real loser here is the EIA — America’s source of energy data — which is squandering its reputation in order to advance President Obama’s agenda.

Consumption haters: Why greens oppose cash-for-clunkers

August 4, 2009

For insight into why greens oppose the cash-for-clunkers program — even though it would reduce tailpipe emissions — read this op-ed by Gwen Ottinger in today’s Washington Post.

Here’s an excerpt:

First, even when new cars and appliances are more efficient than the ones they replace, the act of replacing them entails environmental costs not accounted for in the stimulus programs. Building a new car, washing machine or refrigerator takes energy and resources: The manufacture of steel, aluminum and plastics are energy-intensive processes, and some of the materials used in durable goods, especially plastics, use non-renewable fossil fuels as feedstocks as well as energy sources. Disposing of old products, a step required by most incentive and rebate programs, also has environmental costs: It takes additional energy to shred and recycle metals; plastic components often cannot be recycled and end up as landfill cover; and the engine fluids, refrigerants and other chemicals essential to operating products end up as hazardous wastes.

Cash-for-clunkers, you see, just breeds new/more consumption — and consumption is evil.

Take home message: Stop consuming. Start Decomposing.

Gwen Ottinger: If I only...

Gwen Ottinger: If I only...

... had a brain!

... had a brain!

Genocide-lite: Have one less kid to reduce carbon footprint, says new study

August 4, 2009

From the Oregonian:

Some people who are serious about wanting to reduce their “carbon footprint” on the Earth have one choice available to them that may yield a large long-term benefit – have one less child.

And why should we have fewer children?

The average long-term carbon impact of a child born in the U.S. – along with all of its descendants – is more than 160 times the impact of a child born in Bangladesh.

“In discussions about climate change, we tend to focus on the carbon emissions of an individual over his or her lifetime,” said Paul Murtaugh, an OSU professor of statistics. “Those are important issues and it’s essential that they should be considered. But an added challenge facing us is continuing population growth and increasing global consumption of resources.”

In this debate, very little attention has been given to the overwhelming importance of reproductive choice, Murtaugh said. When an individual produces a child – and that child potentially produces more descendants in the future – the effect on the environment can be many times the impact produced by a person during their lifetime.

Under current conditions in the U.S., for instance, each child ultimately adds about 9,441 metric tons of carbon dioxide to the carbon legacy of an average parent – about 5.7 times the lifetime emissions for which, on average, a person is responsible.

Moving past the junk science-fueled notion of the “carbon footprint” and the discredited population-growth and resource-scarcity fearmongering of the likes of Thomas Malthus and Paul Ehrlich, Western birth rates are already falling precipitously — the U.S. replacement rate is barely at break-even. Having fewer children is tantamount to cultural suicide. Just who would we be saving the planet and its resources for?

Click here for the study.

Click here for study author Paul Murtaugh’s bio.

Genocide-lite study author Paul Murtaugh: Should his carbon footprint have been born?

Genocide-lite study author Paul Murtaugh: Should his carbon footprint have been born?

Chevron gets its wish?

August 4, 2009

Chevron’s fondest wish came true in the second quarter of this year. We used less energy, just like it’s moronic willyoujoinus ad campaign urged — as a result Chevron’s profit declined 71% from 2008.

... and she did.

... and she did.

Chevron CEO David J. O'Reilly innovative business strategy: 'Don't buy my product'

Chevron CEO David J. O'Reilly innovative business strategy: 'Don't buy my product'