greenhouse gas emissions

Cap-and-Trade Global Warming Bill Is A Scam, Experts Reveal

by Hans Bader on November 1, 2009

in Agriculture, Energy, Environment, Ethanol, Features, Global Warming, Natural Resources, Politics as Usual, Precaution & Risk, Sanctimony, Zeitgeist

Two EPA lawyers criticized the cap-and-trade energy bill passed by the House as a scam, noting in The Washington Post that it will be manipulated to profit politically connected corporations and reward certain kinds of pollution, while not cutting greenhouse gas emissions.  A similar scheme enacted in Europe in the name of fighting global warming enriched polluters, while not reducing emissions, which actually rose faster in most of Europe than in the U.S.

The Washington Examiner explains how the bill will lead to deforestation, and thus increase greenhouse gas emissions in the long run.

The bill, which is loaded with pork for special interests, is backed by Obama, who once admitted that under his cap-and-trade scheme, electricity and utility bills would “skyrocket” and coal-fed power plants would go “bankrupt.”  Treasury Department analysts estimated it could increase taxes on the average American household by $1,761 per year.

The bill also contains environmentally harmful provisions, such as massive ethanol subsidies, which will result in “damage to water supplies, soil health and air quality.” Ethanol subsidies have resulted in forests being destroyed in the Third World, and caused famines that have killed countless people in the world’s poorest countries.

LibertyWeek 62: Soak the Rich, Reap the Wind

by Richard Morrison on September 28, 2009

in CEI Projects, Features, Podcast, Zeitgeist

Your host Richard Morrison welcomes returning guest co-host Jeremy Lott of the Capital Research Center and technical producer Ryan Young as special guest commentator for Episode 62 of the LibertyWeek podcast. We start with the semi-proposed allegedly not-a-bailout of the newspaper industry, Steven Chu’s condescending views on energy policy and Google’s copyright troubles in France. We then look at the what soaking the rich has done to New York’s finances, Obama’s presence at the UN and a good old fashioned Washington, D.C. corruption scandal.

Finding Something to Praise in Obama’s Speech Today

by Iain Murray on September 22, 2009

in Economy, Energy, Environment, Global Warming, International, Regulation, Sanctimony, Stimulus to Nowhere

While this speech is mostly hogwash, I am surprised and delighted to be able to find one thing to praise in it:

Later this week, I will work with my colleagues at the G20 to phase out fossil fuel subsidies so that we can better address our climate challenge

This is the right thing to do, for reasons I explained in my recent paper co-written with Sterling Burnett of NCPA (extract follows jump).

While many governments of developed nations argue for a worldwide reduction in fossil fuel use in order to combat climate change, those same governments also subsidize energy use and production.

In 2001, the countries of the EU-15 (the “old Europe” nations in the European Union) spent $16.77 billion (in 2009 dollars) subsidizing coal and $11.23 billion subsidizing oil and gas.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that developing countries spend around $220 billion annually on subsidies for energy production and consumption, of which $170 billion subsidizes fossil fuels [see Figure I]. Including developed countries, subsidies for energy production and consumption worldwide amount to around $300 billion, the majority of which are for fossil fuels.

Such subsidies reduce energy prices below what the market would set, encouraging greater use and raising emissions levels. Direct subsidies include grants to producers and consumers, government investment in research or infrastructure and preferential loans or tax treatment. Indirect subsidies include trade restrictions, price caps and market regulations that guarantee sales volume and restrict competition.

Many signatories to Kyoto subsidize carbon-based fuel use and production. Such subsidies “tilt the playing field,” discouraging research expenditures by private energy companies in developing alternative energy sources. Producers and consumers of other energy sources then demand subsidies to “level the playing field.” Thus, government intervention causes significant distortions in energy markets.

British Petroleum estimates that countries that subsidize transportation fuel use accounted for 96 percent of the increase in oil demand in 2007.13 Many of them are less-developed nations that subsidize both production and consumption of fuels. The IEA estimates that removing domestic price subsidies in China, India, Indonesia, Iran, Russia, Kazakhstan, South Africa and Venezuela would reduce global energy use 3.5 percent and reduce global CO2 emissions 4.6 percent.

U.S. Energy Subsidies.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) calculates that federal energy subsidies amount to $16 billion annually [see Table II]:

In 2007, the federal government spent approximately $5.5 billion on subsidies for the coal, oil and natural gas industries— principally tax breaks for investment — including $3 billion for coal and natural gas, and more than $2 billion for research and development of clean-coal technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from coal.

The government spent an additional $1.2 billion for electricity production and use (not fuel specific), and $2.8 billion to increase the energy efficiency of homes and businesses.

It spent an additional $5 billion for renewable energy production and use, mostly in the form of tax breaks.

Finally, $1.2 billion went to the nuclear industry.

The EIA found that subsidies doubled from 1999 to 2007, due mainly to expanded subsidies for renewable energy and clean-coal technology.

Policy Recommendations. There are a number of neutral energy policies that could be implemented at the national or international level to reduce subsidized production and use:

International trade talks should include eliminating subsidies for fossil fuel production and consumption.

National budgets should be reviewed with the goal of eliminating programs that encourage energy use.

Subsidies and tax breaks, or tax penalties, for specific energy technologies should be eliminated to remove price distortions in energy markets.

A neutral energy tax policy, for example, would include replacing the federal tax-depreciation schedule for investment in new capital stock with immediate expensing. New equipment almost always produces fewer emissions per unit of output than older equipment.

Changing the depreciation schedule so that new investments could be written off immediately would make it profitable to replace old equipment at a much quicker pace. This simple change could do more to increase energy efficiency throughout the economy than the current complicated expensing regime.

Unfortunately, given the President’s praise for loan guarantees and tax credits elsewhere in the speech, he is failing to pursue a neutral energy tax policy, but I’ll give him due credit for at least addressing half of the market distortion.

CBO catches up with CEI on ethanol

by Fran Smith on April 9, 2009 · 1 comment

in Agriculture, Energy, Environment, Global Warming

Well.  The Congressional Budget Office has finally caught up with what CEI has been saying for years –  misguided ethanol policies cause higher food prices without providing significant environmental benefits.  In a report released yesterday, CBO noted this about food prices:

CBO estimates that the increased use of ethanol accounted for about 10 percent to 15 percent of the rise in food prices between April 2007 and April 2008.

And what about ethanol’s highly touted reduction of  greenhouse-gas emissions? Here’s what CBO found:

Last year the use of ethanol reduced gasoline usage in the United States by about 4 percent and greenhouse-gas emissions from the transportation sector by less than 1 percent.

In the long run, if increases in the production of ethanol led to a large amount of forests or grasslands being converted into new cropland, those changes in land use could more than offset any reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions—because forests and grasslands naturally absorb more carbon from the atmosphere than cropland absorbs.

Dennis Avery in a 2006 CEI study pointed this out,  as did this CEI 2007 report on unintended consequences of ethanol policy.  Also see CEI’s website on ethanol.

Energy bill — “first shot” in carbon trade war?

by Fran Smith on April 1, 2009 · 2 comments

in Economy, Energy, Environment, Global Warming, International, Trade

In the wake of the release of the Waxman-Markey energy bill, many commenters have pointed to the drastic restrictions on domestic energy use to address greenhouse gas emissions, while some, like CEI, have pointed to the huge economic costs that would result — costs that would be paid for by consumers and in terms of reduced manufacturing and jobs.  Few have noted a further economic consequence — the possible disruption of the world trading system because of the bill’s endorsement of carbon border taxes on imports from countries that don’t have an energy-repressive regime.  Here’s what CEI’s Iain Murray has to say about that:

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.

Margo Thorning of the American Council for Capital Formation and Bill Kovacs of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce provide hard and realistic criticism of carbon border taxes in National Journal’s Experts Blogs this week.

$2 Trillion Tax from Obama: Hidden Costs of “Cap-and-Trade” Scheme

by Hans Bader on March 24, 2009 · 3 comments

in Bailout Watch, Economy, Energy, Environment, Global Warming, Politics as Usual, Regulation, Stimulus to Nowhere

Obama’s proposed “cap-and-trade” carbon tax on energy use and utility bills is expected to raise up to $2 trillion, more than the $646 billion the Administration earlier estimated. The Washington Examiner‘s Tim Carney explains how this hidden tax works.

(Before his election, Obama explained that electricity bills would “skyrocket” under his Administration, but the press by and large wasn’t interested in reporting it).

The $2 trillion raised by Obama’s cap-and-trade scheme may be dwarfed by the money made, at consumers’ expense, by well-connected corporations that have learned how to game such schemes.

It won’t put much of a dent in the $4.8 trillion in additional debt resulting from Obama’s proposed budget, or the $8 trillion in spending commitments incurred by the Obama Administration (not counting another trillion dollars for the toxic-asset buy-up program and $800 billion for the economy-shrinking “stimulus” package), all of which contradict Obama’s campaign pledge of a “net spending cut.”

But you sure will notice it in your electric bills if it becomes a reality.

When it Comes to Climate Change, Errors Abound

by William Yeatman on February 24, 2009 · 5 comments

in Environment, Global Warming

“A Matter of Fact,” a new report from the Center for American Progress Action Fund, challenges the Washington Post to correct George F. Will’s “Dark Green Doomsayers” column, published February 15th. The report, by CAP’s Brad Johnson, asserts that George Will made three factual errors:

  • Current “global sea ice levels” equals those of 1979
  • There hasn’t been warming in “more than a decade”
  • “Global cooling” joins a list of well publicized “planetary calamities that did not happen.”

Will’s column is not perfect, and Johnson raises some valid questions. For the sake of intellectual honesty, however, Johnson should broaden his fact-checking scope to incorporate misstatements on both sides of the global warming debate—including his own fudging of the truth.

But first, let’s address CAP’s critique of Will’s column.

Error 1. It seems that Will is guilty of delay. On the one hand, the University of Illinois Arctic Climate Research Center, the source of his assertion that global sea ice levels haven’t changed in 30 years, publically disavowed Will’s claims. On the other, ACRC reported on January 1, 2009 that global sea ice levels were “near or slightly lower than those observed in late 1979.” Will’s column appeared 45 days later, during which the discrepancy between current levels and 1979 levels grew by 8%.  If anything, this demonstrates the perils of reporting on an ever-changing global climate.

Error 2. CAP and George Will have it wrong. Will wrote that it hasn’t warmed in “more than a decade,” while Brad Johnson claims that “global warming is continuing.” According to data from the University of Alabama in Huntsville, compiled by NASA’s Dr. Roy Spenser, there has been no statistical warming of lower atmosphere temperatures over the past seven years, despite the fact that global greenhouse gas emissions have increased.

Error 3. Will is right and CAP is wrong. Johnson notes that there was never a “scientific consensus” on global cooling, but that’s not what Will claimed. He only wrote that some scientists and media outlets warned of global cooling, which is true.

I am an unabashed global warming “denier,” but I nonetheless applaud Brad Johnson’s efforts. On the topic of global warming, misrepresentations of the science abound, and we in the energy/global warming policy community should root them out and expose them with vigilance.

With that in mind, I have a “Matter of Fact” list of my own:

Fiction: Al Gore claims in his documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, that “there is one relationship that is more powerful than all the others and it is this. When there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer ….”

Fact: It hasn’t warmed in 7 years, despite a steady increase in global greenhouse gas emissions. Where’s the Warming, Al?

Fiction: Dr. James Hansen, ultra-alarmist, has suggested that a 2-3 degree warming would cause sea levels to rise by 80 feet. Hansen then lowered his estimation to 20 feet. His most recent estimate is “at least” 3.2 to 6.4 feet.

Fact: The preeminent body of climate scientists, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, suggests that a 2-3 degree warming would cause sea levels to rise 7 to 23 inches.

Fiction: In 1986, Dr. John P Holdren, President Barack Obama’s choice to become White House Science Adviser, is quoted as having said that global warming could cause the deaths of 1 billion human beings by 2020. During his confirmation hearing two weeks ago, Holdren was questioned about this claim, and said that “it is still possible.”

Fact: To fulfill Holdren’s alarmist warning, climate change would have to kill twice as many people as died in World War Two, each year, for the next ten years.

Fiction: The Center for American Progress’s Brad Johnson last summer reported that the death of two Boy Scouts in Iowa was “evidence” of “the consequences” of global warming.

Fact: As recently noted on Roger Pielke Jr’s Prometheus, the Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters cautions that “justifying the upward trend in hydro-meteorological disaster occurrence and impacts essentially through climate change would be misleading.”

Krugman is Wrong – Again!

by Iain Murray on January 26, 2009 · 3 comments

in Energy, Environment, Global Warming, Mobility, Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Politics as Usual, Sanctimony

Boy, that wacky Paul Krugman. The newly-crowned Nobel laureate (they should be allowed to wear a laurel wreath everywhere they go, so we’d know of their brilliance), fresh from revealing how little he understands the history – or purpose – of liberalism, shows he knows diddly-squat about Air Traffic Control.

In today’s column he argues, plonkingly,

Here’s how to think about this argument: it implies that we should shut down the air traffic control system. After all, that system is paid for with fees on air tickets — and surely it would be better to let the flying public keep its money rather than hand it over to government bureaucrats. If that would mean lots of midair collisions, hey, stuff happens.

Unfortunately for Krug, the fact is that the public sector does a pretty poor job of Air Traffic Control. Not because of large numbers of accidents – that doesn’t happen anywhere much these days – but in terms of waste and inefficiency. American ATC is based on a system of beacons from the early days of air transport. Those have long since been superseded in safety terms by GPS and other innovations, but the system is still based on them. Liberalizing ATC actually makes a huge amount of sense, which is why plenty of governments around the world have done it, without seeing mid-air collisions, erm, explode. As I say in the new Agenda for Congress:

Liberalize Air Travel. … Privatization and modernization of the air traffic control system not only would allow faster flights and less delay at airports but save up to 400,000 barrels of oil per day, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions accordingly. And there is no need to reinvent the wheel. Canada’s successful air traffic control privatization offers a useful model.

You can only really object to that if you’re a socialist dogmatist, or your thinking is stuck in the 1930s. I’m not sure which is the case with El Krug.

For a broader picture, Jon Henke does a great job of commenting on the entire column over at The Next Right.

Prediction 2009: No Agreement at Copenhagen

by Iain Murray on December 30, 2008 · 2 comments

in Energy, Environment, Global Warming

The global warming community have suggested for a while now that, given the almost-certain change in US administration policy on global warming (remember John McCain’s position), the conference of the Kyoto Treaty parties in 2009 at Copenhagen would result in a sea change in global action on greenhouse gas emissions. Copenhagen would produce a new treaty, son-of-Kyoto, that would have full US participation, set stringent and enforceable emission limits aimed at getting the world to the sort of emissions levels some scientists demand, and start to involve the developing world in emissions reductions.

This is not going to happen.

For a start, it looks like US policy is going to concentrate on getting a domestic settlement in place before agreeing to any international action other than the traditional “agreeing to agree.” Secondly, with the world in financial chaos, governments are going to look askance at any possibility of deep emissions cuts in the short term because they know how costly that will be (the recent EU agreement – in actuality an agreement for just 4% cuts by 2020 – is a great example). This will make the drastic emissions cuts supposedly necessary in the medium-term well-nigh impossible to achieve. Finally, developing countries have consistently stated that they will not take on any emissions reductions, demanding the developed world move first. Yet even if the developed world reduces its emissions to zero by 2050, the developing world will have to keep its emissions at around today’s levels to meet just a 50% global reduction by 2050. That represents a reduction from expected developing world emissions of 57%. To meet the 80% reduction demanded by most scientists will require a severe reduction in emissions from today’s levels that represent widespread energy poverty.

So despite the optimism, a genuine international agreement looks some way off. Copenhagen will doubtless be sold as a triumph, but in reality the world will be no closer to a genuine, binding international agreement than it was in 2001.

Deregulatory Bailout

by Iain Murray on December 12, 2008 · 10 comments

in Bailout Watch, Economy, Mobility

There are hundreds of regulations that Congress and agencies have imposed on the auto industry, driving up their costs unnecessarily. As an illustration, these are the new rules from the DOT identified by Wayne Crews in the 2008 edition of Ten Thousand Commandments:

– Reform of the automobile fuel economy standards program.
– Light-truck Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards (2012 model years and beyond).
– Upgrade of head restraints in vehicles.
– Rear center lap and shoulder belt requirement.
– Monitoring systems for improved tire safety and tire pressure.
– Automotive regulations for car lighting, door retention, brake hoses, daytime running-light glare, and side impact protection.

Plus these from the EPA:

– Rulemaking to address greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles.
– Clean air visibility, mercury, and ozone implementation rules.
– Review of National Ambient Air Quality Standards for lead, ozone, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, and nitrogen dioxide.
– National emission standards for hazardous air pollutants from … auto paints.

These rules and all those from previous years need to be reanalyzed in the light of the industry’s troubles to see whether they should be repealed, suspended or weakened. In particular, attention should be paid to their aggregate effect on the industry. A deregulatory bailout would save the industry billions, and also save thousands of lives.

Next Entries →