It’s not easy being Green

On Friday, the Obama administration declared that carbon dioxide (including five other industrial gases) was a grave danger to human health and a threat to the environment. The regulatory agency that will be in charge of crafting environmental regulation will be the Environmental Protection Agency. However, I surmise that it will probably be Congress that creates some sort of all encompassing environmental legislation. This is the moment that environmental groups were waiting for and it is for them a major step into crafting a "green" economy. This is huge. This ruling means that everything that you consume or purchase will essentially become more expensive--EVERYTHING. Congratulations, my dear taxpayers, our nation is now off to a new economic experiment that will never pay off and will bring grimaces of pain when citizens have to settle the bill.

By the way, the "green" experiment of ethanol hasn't worked out well at all yet our government will continue to subsidize it till someone notices the huge money pit that it is. Despite the fact that ethanol plants are closing all over the country, our government wants to mandate even more ethanol use. Of course, this means that the taxpayer remains on the hook to benefit ethanol producers and the states that have them.

Alternative Energy Sham!

You hear it all the time from Democrats, Progressives, and environmentalists --They want more (government and corporate) investment in renewable and alternative energy. And they are always lambasting energy companies, oil companies, and Republicans for not facilitating enough research and development to move our country forward regarding energy. We’ve been hearing it for years now. In yesterday’s WSJ editorial section (subscription may be required), it turns out that what these groups say they want and how it is to be achieved are at odds:

In this year's great energy debate, Democrats describe a future when the U.S. finally embraces the anything-but-carbon avant-garde. It turns out, however, that when wind and solar power do start to come on line, they face a familiar obstacle: environmentalists and many Democrats.

To wit, the greens are blocking the very transmission network needed for renewable electricity to move throughout the economy. The best sites for wind and solar energy happen to be in the sticks -- in the desert Southwest where sunlight is most intense for longest, or the plains where the wind blows most often. To exploit this energy, utilities need to build transmission lines to connect their electricity to the places where consumers actually live. In addition to other technical problems, the transmission gap is a big reason wind only provides two-thirds of 1% of electricity generated in the U.S., and solar one-tenth of 1%.

Only last week, Duke Energy and American Electric Power announced a $1 billion joint venture to build a mere 240 miles of transmission line in Indiana necessary to accommodate new wind farms. Yet the utilities don't expect to be able to complete the lines for six long years -- until 2014, at the earliest, because of the time necessary to obtain regulatory approval and rights-of-way, plus the obligatory lawsuits.

In California, hundreds turned out at the end of July to protest a connection between the solar and geothermal fields of the Imperial Valley to Los Angeles and Orange County. The environmental class is likewise lobbying state commissioners to kill a 150-mile link between San Diego and solar panels because it would entail a 20-mile jaunt through Anza-Borrego state park. "It's kind of schizophrenic behavior," Arnold Schwarzenegger said recently. "They say that we want renewable energy, but we don't want you to put it anywhere."

California has a law mandating that utilities generate 20% of their electricity from "clean-tech" by 2010. Some 24 states have adopted a "renewable portfolio standard," while Barack Obama wants to impose a national renewable mandate. But the states, with the exception of Texas, didn't make transmission lines easier to build, though it won't prevent them from penalizing the power companies that fail to meet an impossible goal.

Now, does this all sound reasonable to you? These are the same people that do not want any domestic off-shore drilling or nuclear power plants. We will severely hamstring our economy and our well-being if we continue to let radicals dictate our national energy policy.

The danger of subsidizing renewable energy

Reason.tv has a great video on the fiasco that Bio-fuels made from corn ethanol has brought on the world.

When government ends up subsidizing an industry or a program that ends up having poor unintended consequences, like we have experienced with corn ethanol, my trail test to those that favor deep government subsidies for projects that they deem essential to society is what happens if that program or policy turns out to not work as initially expected? Since Democrats, environmentalists, and even some Republicans continuously call for subsidizing “renewable” energy or “alternative” energy, what happens if government picks a loser and ends up wasting billions of taxpayer funds chasing a viable technology? I find it difficult to imagine that many of these groups would be comfortable with such a waste.

Now that many national and international organizations and government bodies have acknowledged the problems with corn ethanol, how long will it take our government to fix the problem? I bet that it will take at least a decade before subsidies for corn ethanol bio-fuels are reversed.

The magical realism of the Kyoto Treaty

Remember all the static and noise by environmentalists and lefty’s everywhere regarding the Kyoto treaty? And how the “evil” George W. Bush was responsible for the destruction of the earth because he didn’t sign it? (Even though the Senate rejected the treaty in the first place-but let’s not let facts get in the way of a good Bush bashing.) Well, as I have commented before, the Kyoto treaty doesn’t work as well as its' proponents shrill. Even though I am not a big fan of Mr. Bush, I do agree with him on his stance on Kyoto. And it looks like most member nations of the G-8 are also starting to see the light of reason.

A Brave New Green World!!

Oh, boy! Hang on to your wallets! Wait till you get a load of this. Currently, in the U.K., there is legislation to ration personal CO2 emissions: When you gas up, or when you buy that airline ticket to visit grandma, the government will track all of your CO2 use. When you overuse your allotment of personal CO2, you will have to buy some credits from someone who has them. Imagine that! This is where modern environmentalism is taking us, folks--a massive leviathan of a bureaucracy with ever more control of our lives and our freedom in the name of “saving” the planet.

It would cost a country like Britain billions of dollars a year to run a personal cap-and-trade system nationwide, but set that aside. War-time-like energy rations are a clear illustration of the extent to which environmentalists hope to control every aspect of modern life. Do you really want to blow much of your annual "ration" on that long carbon-spewing jet flight to Florida, or should you swap that summer AC for weekend drives in the country?

The global warmists want you to sacrifice for their cause. And the duration of their war on carbon will make the decade-and-a-half of British rationing during and after World War II seem like a fleeting moment. The pending climate-change bill calls for a 60% cut in carbon emissions from their 1990 levels by 2050. Once 2050 rolls around, who exactly will declare the end of hostilities?

The prospect of personal CO2 rations should debunk the idea that the cost of curbing carbon emissions would fall on the owners of dirty old factories. That notion was always a green herring: Like corporate taxes, the business costs of carbon reduction will be passed on to consumers. In that sense, we should be grateful to the Brits for showing us where this anticarbon crusade really ends up.

Can you imagine what this sort of personal cap-and-trade would cost if it were implemented in the U.S.? My only hope is that this sort of bureaucracy would frustrate Americans to no end and any politician that suggested it would be sent packing. I can only hope.

California Wild Fires

Since last Monday, I have been forced to stay indoors with my windows shut due to the pall of hazy smoke hanging in our air. We have had a plethora of wild fires in California and they have created a major health hazard. I work from home but I still had to run errands and even though I limited my exposure to the smoky air, I could still feel heaviness in my chest due to polluted air. Interestingly, the usual suspects of environmentalist groups have been rather silent during this whole fiery event.

Today, the air is clearer and visibility has improved. I can finally open my windows and the sun doesn’t glow a hazy red-orange. The stench of burnt wood has subsided. But I can’t help but to feel annoyed and peeved at the hypocrisy of groups like the Sierra Club who have successfully managed (through lawsuits) to obstruct management of our forests and wooded areas in the name of “saving” them. Incredibly, the Sierra Club has been hostile to clearing brush and to even creating fire trails. I have no doubt that the extent of these wild fires could have been reduced if a sensible land management plan was currently in place.

The amount of carbon dioxide that has been pumped into the air over the last week must have been massive (there are still fires that are currently burning and may burn for the entire summer) and the amount of state resources needed to combat the fires have also been massive. I don’t understand how environmental groups--who purport to want to save the planet from global warming by reducing carbon dioxide--adopt policies that would invariably, do harm to the environment!

On environmentalists that oppose cap and trade

There is a great post by A Disgruntled Republican on how some environmental groups opposed the Lieberman-Warner Bill; I understand that many were primarily concerned with the bill allocating some funds for Nuclear power plants. I think that this country needs more nuclear power and less coal plants. And I have always felt that environmentalist groups (like Greenpeace) have been primarily responsible for polluting our air and making some of our citizens suffer from breathing ailments due to their zeal in blocking the construction of nuclear plants but not stopping (with the same zeal) the construction of coal fired plants. Yes, you read it correctly—groups and individuals that resist nuclear power plants (This includes the great eco-messiah, Al Gore) have done more to destroy and despoil our environment than even the federal government---the greatest polluter in the country.

Yet, on the Lieberman-Warner bill, groups like Greenpeace and I found common ground.

Lieberman-Warner boondoggle goes down in flames

If you haven’t heard, the bill failed cloture by a vote of 48-36. Whew. I’m sure that it will be back up in a new ugly form sometime next year. We must be vigilant against this money sucking bill.

New cap and trade chart!

I received this new chart from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. It is simply mind-boggling. This cap and trade scheme is a bureaucratic nightmare.

Click here to see the full chart in PDF
HT: Brad Peck at Chamberpost

Climate bill in Senate turns into a squabble

From Road Runner: A Senate debate over global warming legislation turned into late-night drama Wednesday marked by an eight-hour reading of the 492-page bill and a call for senators to return _ some of them from their homes _ to cast a procedural vote not long before midnight.

An angry Majority Leader Harry Reid demanded senators return to the Capitol for the late-night vote after Republicans blocked his attempt to limit amendments on the bill, arguing there were not enough senators in the chamber for Reid to proceed.

Comment: One of the law-makers had to show up in shorts and a t-shirt for the procedural vote that eventually failed. Majority leader Harry Reid had the temerity to accuse the Republicans of “making political points” because they disapprove of this massive bureaucratic bill. Yet, the entire spirit of the bill is about scoring “political points.” If the sponsors of this bill really cared about carbon emissions, why don’t they push for a far simpler carbon tax? They don’t because they want to hide the true cost of this boondoggle from the American taxpayer. Is it any wonder why the legislative branch of government has a lower approval level than the hated George W. Bush?

A big Hat Tip to Bobo at The BoBo Files for this story.

Cap and Trade debate

I spent several hours watching C-Span yesterday as Senators debated one another regarding the Lieberman-Warner “Cap and Security Act” scheme. One of the constant defenses thrown around by advocates (Senators Boxer, Kerry, Warner, and Lieberman) for this scheme was that a similar cap and trade model worked to perfection in the Northeastern United States during the 1980’s when it came to reducing acid rain.

Of course, what they fail to mention is that part of the program’s success back then was the fortuitous timing of the price of low-sulfur coal: It had started to drop just around the time of the cap and trade enforcement. Many coal fired plants switched over to the cleaner burning coal and therefore found an easy and less expensive way to clean up their act. Secondly, the technology needed to trim sulfur dioxide was available at the time of that cap and trade scheme. The sort of technology that is needed to cut carbon dioxide on such a grand scale as the Lieberman-Warner bill mandates is not yet available. Also, somebody could inform the Senator’s (sadly, John McCain backs this bill) backing this bill that the current cap and trade scheme in place in Europe is not working as planned. Why do we want to adopt a huge bureaucracy that doesn’t work? That means that this bill, if made into law, will be another expensive large government program.

And just like the Farm Bill, get ready to empty your wallets dear taxpayer---Cha-Ching!

The cost of future Energy gets more expensive

From the WSJ:

A new generation of nuclear power plants is on the drawing boards in the U.S., but the projected cost is causing some sticker shock: $5 billion to $12 billion a plant, double to quadruple earlier estimates.

Nuclear power is regaining favor as an alternative to other sources of power generation, such as coal-fired plants, which have fallen out of favor because they are major polluters. But the high cost could lead to sharply higher electricity bills for consumers and inevitably re-ignite debate about the nuclear industry's suitability to meet growing energy needs.

Nuclear plants haven't been built in meaningful numbers in the U.S. since the 1980s. Part of the cost escalation is bad luck. Plants are being proposed in a period of skyrocketing costs for commodities such as cement, steel and copper; amid a growing shortage of skilled labor; and against the backdrop of a shrunken supplier network for the industry.

Comment: Since we have neglected, over the last 25-30 years, to build enough plants to meet our current and future energy needs, it looks like we may have to swallow the bitter pill of paying through the nose. Blame environmental hysteria and fear mongering

Possible solution: A carbon tax on fossil fuel emitter plants will continue to make nuclear power construction economically viable.

Check out the great post on a similar subject at
The BoBo Files

Green thoughts

I paid $32.30 today to fill up at the local Shell station. O.K., my car is a small four cylinder Toyota so I’ll admit that gas prices haven’t exactly financially clobbered me and my family. Still, I have noticed that it takes about ten to twenty bucks more to fill ‘er up. My lord, I can’t imagine having to fill up one of those giant SUV’s. Ouch! Current high gas prices are due to a weak dollar, the herd mentality of commodity speculation, and growing demand in China and India that has not abated.

Unfortunately, Americans are going to have to get used to these high prices. Our lame politicians serve up weak solutions (Sorry, but a “tax holiday” or windfall profit taxes on oil companies will not make gas prices drop and they will certainly not make any difference in the long run) that only pander to susceptible voters. Coupled with our current cultural obsession with everything and anything having to do with the environment, they have pretty much guaranteed pricier gas for decades to come.

We Americans are a strange lot; we want cheap gas for our cars but we shun most offshore oil drilling and refuse to tap resources in desolate landscapes like ANWR (even though less than fifty miles away, there is the major oil facility of Prudhoe Bay): A fitful contradiction that probably drives politicians looking for votes to make stupid suggestions on lowering gas prices and it certainly leads to bad national energy policy.

There’s a part of me that actually welcomes high prices; Gasoline consumers are already starting to cut back on their fuel use. Auto consumers are carefully weighing fuel economy in cars they intend to purchase. Auto manufactures are getting the hint that they need to design and build cars that are more fuel efficient: this is the market magic at work here, folks. Despite all the bellyaching, it is working just as it should.

But what is most worrisome, is that Americans do not seem to understand that for the foreseeable future, energy prices in general are going to be higher than they have in the past and for a far longer period of time. For the last thirty years or so, our country has been committing energy suicide: We have failed to build new petroleum refineries to meet growing demand, new oil and gas pipelines have not been built, and nuclear power has been off the table as a viable source of clean energy for decades. Americans will finally see how expensive it really is to be wholly “green.” As it has been envisioned by those that believe that to severely restrict oil, gas, and nuclear energy production (with enough litigation to bog any sensible progress) will therefore get us to the promised land of magic alternative fuels or the super green infrastructure that will be cheap, clean, produce no carbon emissions, and will cause Greens everywhere to smugly exclaim “I told you so, don’t you feel ashamed now, you idiot?”

Except that the Green economy, as envisioned by individuals like Al Gore, is going to be ferociously expensive. The technology to reduce emissions to the levels that environmentalist’s desire simply is not there or is not politically viable (i.e. nuclear power). So now we are stuck with not enough conventional energy to meet our growing demand and not nearly enough alternative energy too. When the average American starts to fork over a sizable amount of their income to comply with rising energy needs, a backlash may occur and the most likely candidates for a drubbing will be those very same politicians that pushed unrealistic energy goals.

Now don’t misunderstand me on the climate change issue or on pollution in general. I don’t believe that industries, corporations or even individuals should be allowed to pollute without penalty. If I have a business that pumps unhealthful fumes into the air that a city is downwind from and that they may end up breathing, I should at least have to pay a penalty or a recompense for my use/polluting of everyone’s air. If you have read this blog for some time you know that I have always advocated a national carbon tax on polluters and that the carbon tax is far more efficient than a carbon trading scheme. But I digress. What I object to is that most environmental policy has been forged in a climate of hysteria. This has led to some of the policies alluded to above that most likely will fritter away billions in precious investment capital that could have been used to develop efficient technologies of the future. Instead, we are going to have to settle for what we have now as far as an energy infrastructure and hope that energy costs don’t spike as fast or as painfully as filling your car.

Bio-Fuels are bad for environment.

From:The Christian Science Monitor

Scientists at the University of British Columbia and the University of Wisconsin looked at the energy bill President Bush signed in December and its goal of producing 36 billion gallons of ethanol a year by 2022. They analyzed the impact it could have on nutrients from farm runoff. Nutrients in the runoff flow down the Mississippi and Atchafalaya Rivers and feed algae in the Gulf. When the algae die, they decompose, which uses up oxygen in the water. Low-oxygen waters are fatal to organisms like shellfish.

Comment: Government subsidies encourage farmers to use every square inch of arable land, even if it comes right up to river banks. In order to grow corn, farmers use loads of pesticides. To cultivate the crop, CO2 spewing farm machinery is used. And as was noted in Part one of this series, ethanol production uses up an extraordinary amount of fresh water. The truth of the matter is that ethanol ends up being worse for the environment than fossil fuels. Of course, none of the above problems stopped our government from increasing the U.S. mandate to 36 billion gallons of ethanol by 2022, a fivefold increase from a mere two years ago. Interestingly, the “greens” that spent years pushing the idea of bio-fuels, and in particular ethanol, have been rather silent on the damning effects of the fuel. It’s almost as if they wish to disassociate themselves from a bad idea.