“After spending $55 million of a $118.5 million grant from” the U.S. “Department of Energy, Ener1, an Indianapolis-based maker of batteries,” has just “declared bankruptcy.”

The White House had enthusiastically touted the company, which gave rise to an embarrassing gaffe by Vice President Biden:

Vice President Biden visited Ener1 one year ago, January 26, 2011. . .On several occasions, Biden called the company “Enron one” during his visit, invoking a seemingly unintentional but ultimately prescient reference to the collapse of the energy giant Enron. The company was also ranked number 67 in the White House Report: 100 Recovery Projects that are Changing America.

To some, the bankrupt firm is a “candidate in the increasingly competitive race to become the Next Solyndra.” But in reality, several other recipients of green-jobs subsidies under the stimulus package have already gone broke. CBS News had earlier reported that there were 11 Solyndras — that is, financially-troubled recipients of green-jobs subsidies, five of which had already filed for bankruptcy. After the CBS News report, Evergreen Energy, another green-jobs recipient, filed for bankruptcy.

President Obama touted similar green-jobs boondoggles in his 2012 State of the Union address. In his 2010 State of the Union, the president touted Solyndra, which went bankrupt a year later after receiving $535 million from taxpayers. As Rep. Cliff Stearns noted:

Only two days after President Obama highlighted federal investments in high-tech batteries in his State of the Union address, Ener1 joined Solyndra, Beacon Power, Evergreen Solar, SpecrtaWatt, and AES in bankruptcy – all recipients of taxpayer dollars.  We have a national debt exceeding $15 trillion, and the Administration is borrowing money from China to waste on subsidies for companies that are not viable.

As The Washington Post noted, energy programs have been “infused with politics at every level” during the Obama administration. It hastily approved subsidies for Solyndra, whose executives are now pleading the 5th Amendment, despite obvious danger signs and warnings about the company’s likely collapse. (Later, federal officials successfully pressured Solyndra to delay its announcement about upcoming layoffs until just after the 2010 election, to avoid embarrassing the Obama administration.)

The Obama administration has used green-jobs money from the stimulus package to outsource American jobs to countries like China: “Despite all the talk of green jobs, the overwhelming majority of stimulus money spent on wind power has gone to foreign companies, according to a new report by the Investigative Reporting Workshop at the American University’s School of Communication in Washington, D.C.” As the Investigative Reporting Workshop noted, “79 percent” of all green-jobs funding “went to companies based overseas . . . In fact, the largest grant made under the program so far, a $178 million payment on Dec. 29, went to Babcock & Brown, a bankrupt Australian company.” This just one of many ways in which the Obama administration has used taxpayer money to outsource American jobs to foreign countries.

My take on President Obama’s 2012 State of the Union address is at this link. It discusses one of the jobs proposals he will reportedly make this evening.

There are 11 more Solyndras in the Obama administration’s clean-energy program, reports CBS News. These companies are in financial trouble — five have already gone bankrupt — after receiving billions in federal assistance despite warning signs that their projects were not viable. I discuss this and the Solyndra scandal in more detail at this link.

While costing taxpayers billions, the Obama administration’s green jobs programs have failed to create viable jobs. Instead, they have been used to outsource American jobs to countries like China. American University’s Investigative Reporting Workshop found that 79 percent of green-jobs funds went to foreign firms, like a bankrupt Australian company.

The Obama administration has also wiped out jobs through its policies on health care, financial regulation, and labor and employment law.

Have a listen here.

Politicians usually love infrastructure projects. But politics has delayed the privately owned Keystone XL pipeline’s construction for three years now. Research Associate David Bier explains the reasons behind the delay, and points out that the pipeline’s real benefit isn’t the jobs it would create; it’s the wealth and value it would create.

As expected, the European Court for Justice — the EU’s highest court — has ruled that the EU’s plan to charge foreign airlines for their emissions through purchasing carbon permits complies with international law and doesn’t threaten foreign countries’ sovereignty.

As of January, aircraft landing or taking off from EU airports will be assessed carbon emission fees. (See yesterday’s OpenMarket for more background.) The carbon trading scheme is opposed by major economies, including the U.S., Japan, India, China, Brazil, Russia, and many others.

But that didn’t deter the EU or the high court. After all, the Court noted in its opinion, airlines can choose whether to use EU airports:

It is only if the operators of such aircraft choose to operate a commercial air route arriving at or departing from an airport situated in the EU that they are subject to the emissions trading scheme.

It has been reported that Canada and other countries will continue the battle through other channels, notably the UN’s International Civil Aviation Organization in Montreal.

And, as CEI pointed out yesterday, trade retaliation is a likely outcome.  Already Fitch’s rating agency is taking a dim view of what this means for the ailing airline industry:

We believe threats of trade retaliation over the EU’s cap and trade system will pose growing threats to aviation market access in both developed and emerging markets next year. The U.S. House of Representatives has already passed a bill prohibiting compliance with the ETS by U.S. airlines, and diplomatic efforts to roll back the implementation of the scheme will likely intensify in the new year.

Retaliation may be largely rhetorical in the early stages, but an absence of progress next year may trigger protectionist responses, especially from emerging market governments. Moves to restrict market access through slot allocations and route authorities could have a material economic impact during a precarious time for the global economy, when airline revenue growth is coming under renewed pressure. . . .

We agree with the industry’s assessment that ETS [emissions trading scheme] carbon permit costs will effectively serve as a tax on the world’s airlines, raising operating costs on all European flights at a time when emissions charges are unlikely to be passed on to customers in the form of higher fares.

So, the Court is its arrogance is willing to open the gates of protectionism, tax the world’s airlines, and  further weaken the airline industry — and ultimately harm the fragile world economy. The Grinch that stole Christmas.

The U.S. sent a strong letter to the European Union warning them that the EU’s airline emissions trading scheme — set to start in January 2012 — should be halted or postponed. If not, the letter from U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, “. . . we will be compelled to take appropriate action.” According to the Financial Times (registration required), 42 other countries, including major economic powerhouses, such as China and Brazil, signed onto the letter, which seemed to be timed just before the EU’s highest court renders its decision.

On Wednesday the EU’s Court of Justice is expected to rule in favor of the EU’s plan to charge airlines — domestic and foreign — for their carbon emissions. The EU scheme would cover aviation in its controversial — and collapsing — cap-and-trade system for reducing carbon emissions. All planes landing or taking off in the EU would be forced to pay for their emissions, whether those were emitted over EU airspace or not.

Expanding the failing carbon trading system during a period of failing economies seems to be an act of self-flagellation on the part of the EU in the name of environmentalism. Or maybe they are hoping to bring other countries down to a “level playing field” of wasting billions of dollars that would flow into their coffers. A 2009 study by Matt Sinclair of the UK’s Taxpayers’ Alliance estimated that from its introduction in 2005 through 2008, the EU’s carbon trading scheme has cost European consumers €93 billion. Just last month The Australian reported that the Swiss bank UBS had issued a study stating:

. . . the European Union’s emissions trading scheme has cost the continent’s consumers $287 billion for “almost zero impact” on cutting carbon emissions, and has warned that the EU’s carbon pricing market is on the verge of a crash next year.

In a damning report to clients, UBS Investment Research said that had the €210bn the European ETS had cost consumers been used in a targeted approach to replace the EU’s dirtiest power plants, emissions could have been reduced by 43 per cent “instead of almost zero impact on the back of emissions trading.”

If the EU stands by its plan to exert control over airlines of other countries and to charge them for emissions, many have argued that it would attack the sovereignty of other countries, destroy the international legal system in place for airlines – the Convention on International Civil Aviation – put onerous economic burdens on airlines, and raise the cost of international travel and delivery services.

Retaliation would seem inevitable, which could plunge the fragile world economy into a destructive trade war.

President Obama ran on a platform of transparency. He praised whistleblowers. “Such acts of courage and patriotism,” he said, “should be encouraged rather than stifled.” He was intensely critical of the Bush administration that “ignored public disclosure rules.” The president and his staff have both said, “This is the most transparent administration in the history of our country.” Yet his administration has been even more secretive and hostile toward public disclosure than the previous. He has cracked down on whistleblowers (and the journalists who they leak to) more than any other administration in history. He has brought nearly double (5) the number of indictments against whistleblowers than all previous administrations combined (3), and is currently working on another.

On top of this war on whistleblowers, the president has fought Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. “Two years into its pledge to improve government transparency,” the Associated Press reports, “the Obama administration handled fewer requests for federal records from citizens, journalists, companies and others last year even as significantly more people asked for information.” In November, Obama’s Justice Department proposed a rule that would allow them to lie about the existence of documents that were of national security concern. Last month, CEI’s Chris Horner called the administration the “most secretive ever,” and listed many ways in which under Obama, FOIA requests have been thwarted in the most underhanded ways.

Today, Horner has reported new outrages in Obama’s transparency war. He writes that “the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), Criminal Division, is working with United Kingdom police to pursue the leaker of the 2009 and 2011 ‘Climategate’ emails. I have learned that last week DOJ sent a search-and-seizure letter to the host of three climate-change ‘skeptic’ blogs. Last night, UK police raided a blogger’s home and removed computers and equipment.” He continues:

The leaked records derailed “cap-and-trade” legislation in the U.S. and, internationally, as well as talks for a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. The emails and computer code were produced with taxpayer funds and held on taxpayer-owned computers both in the US and the UK, and all were subject to the UK Freedom of Information Act, the U.S. Freedom of Information Act and state FOIA laws.

They also were being unlawfully withheld in both the UK (by the University of East Anglia) and the U.S. (Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), including stonewalling me for two years, and three other requesters for longer).

The hunt involving U.S. and UK law enforcement agencies is now escalating. On Wednesday night UK time, six detectives with the UK police (Norfolk Police Department) raided the home of at least one blogger, removing his equipment to look for clues to the identity of leaker “FOIA 2011.”

On December 9, DOJ sent a preservation letter under 18 U.S.C 2703(f) to the publication platform (website host) WordPress. This authority authorizes the government to request an Internet Service Provider (ISP) to preserve all records of a specific account for 90 days while the feds work on a warrant.

Norfolk PD affirmed to the subject of at least one of their raids that this international law enforcement hunt is for the leaker, meaning not for those whose acts the leaker exposed by making public emails containing admissions in their own words.

View the whole article here.

Have a listen here.

What is the single most expensive regulation of all time? Energy Policy Analyst William Yeatman has one candidate: the EPA’s proposal to regulate mercury emissions from coal-powered plants. If it passes, the regulation would cost at least ten billion dollars per year to benefit a very small group of people: pregnant women who have subsistence-level income, and eat mostly large fish caught in inland freshwater bodies.

Recently, Republican members of the U.S. House of Representatives have proposed opening up more federal land and offshore areas to natural resource extraction. Such a move would both increase domestic energy production and raise government revenues through royalty payments. During the current economic slump and resulting fiscal crunch, anything that can increase the quantity of energy supplied and reduce government deficits should be lauded. But what some Republican members of Congress propose to spend these revenues on is far from laudable.

Led by House Speaker John Boehner, some in the Republican caucus wish to pour oil and natural gas lease revenues into the Highway Trust Fund, which has suffered from severe shortfalls for several years now. Right now, a six-year surface transportation reauthorization proposal (“the highway bill,” the previous multi-year reauthorization expired 777 days ago) from House Republicans needs to find an estimated $75-$100 billion in additional revenues in order to fully fund their bill, and proponents of such a funding mechanism argue that this will help close the gap. Many in the free market energy community are also applauding.

However, both groups fail to appreciate the long-run dangers of moving from the current (and longstanding) “user-pays” principle to a “taxpayer-pays” principle. They ought to pay more attention to the concerns of free market transportation scholars, such as the Reason Foundation’s Robert Poole and the Independent Institute’s Gabriel Roth. Since the Interstate program was established in 1956, federal highway spending relied on the “user-pays/user-benefits” principle. The idea was to tax road users (on fuel, tires, etc.) and then use the tax revenues to fund maintenance and capacity enhancements. This makes sense, as one would expect user tax revenue to approximately track user demand. Revenues were deposited into the Highway Trust Fund, which is partially shielded from the highly politicized appropriations battles that take place over most funding. This concept has long enjoyed broad bipartisan support.

It is well known that Highway Trust Fund revenues are no longer able to keep up with surface transportation spending. The federal excise taxes on gasoline and diesel have not been raised in nearly 20 years, and inflation has eroded a considerable amount of that purchasing power. Automobiles have also become more fuel efficient, which may save consumers some money at the pump, but this does not reduce wear and tear on the roads or reduce congestion costs. And other than a handful of limited exceptions, federal highway funds may not be used by the states to toll their Interstate segments.

Since the early 1980s, mass transit systems been receiving revenue generated by highway users. Through the Highway Trust Fund’s Mass Transit Account, as well as the Federal Highway Administration’s Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program and the Surface Transportation Program, transit now gobbles up about 20 percent of these revenues — robbing Peter the driver to pay for Paul’s train ticket. While transit users certainly pay far too little in fares to support the current systems, many arguably pay too much for the services they receive. Most municipalities prohibit flexible, smaller, private paratransit service, and states and municipalities have a strong political incentive to burn through as much federal grant money as possible and “invest” in the most expensive transit options available — which means underused high-capacity buses and extremely expensive and inflexible rail transit.

To put it simply, federal surface transportation policy is a complete mess. Earlier this year, House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman John Mica proposed major reforms to surface transportation in the U.S. — slashing current federal spending levels by more than one-third. This would have forced states, counties, and municipalities to make wiser investment decisions and to entertain novel funding mechanisms. Sadly, in the name of “jobs, jobs, jobs” (note: the mantra is never “growth, growth, growth”), it appears likely that members from both parties will continue much of the waste that characterizes government transportation spending.

The transportation system is already over-politicized. The myopic Republican plan to partially fund transportation improvements through oil and gas lease revenues — breaking with the long-established “user-pays” principle — will almost certainly increase political manipulation of transportation investments in the future, thereby increasing waste, fraud, and abuse. The U.S. cannot afford to go down this road.

While I’m all for “drill, baby, drill!” and reducing the deficit with oil and gas royalty revenues, these monies should be deposited elsewhere. Elsewhere as in, “anywhere but the Highway Trust Fund.”