The Enterprise Blog

Author Archive

« Older Entries

Kenneth P. Green

Renewable energy stocks in decline

By Kenneth P. Green

May 18, 2012, 2:03 pm

For those tracking the ongoing pop-pop-popping of the renewabubble, The Hockey Schtick has a post worth printing out and putting on the wall:

The RENIXX Index of the 30 largest renewable energy companies in the world is trading at an all-time low today and has lost over 90% of its value since 2008. A partial listing of green energy companies that have already filed bankruptcy or are teetering on the brink is below. Many of these companies were financed by taxpayers.

Filed Bankruptcy:

o    Solyndra
o    Beacon Power
o    Ener1
o    Range Fuels
o    Solar Trust of America
o    Spectrawatt
o    Evergreen Solar
o    Eastern Energy
o    Unisolar
o    Bright Automotive
o    Olson’s Crop Service
o    Energy Conversion Devices
o    Sovello
o    Siag
o    Solon
o    Q-Cells
o    Mountain Plaza

Teetering on the Brink:

o    Abound Solar
o    A123 Systems
o    Brightsource Energy
o    Fisker Automotive
o    First Solar
o    Nevada Geothermal
o    SunPower
o    Nordex
o    The Bard Group
o    Amonix
o    NRG Energy
o    Alterra Power
o    Enel Green Power
o    Sunpower Corp

Email to Author   |   Permalink   |   Comments (0)
Categories:  Energy and Environment   |   Tags:

Kenneth P. Green

Is science in decline?

By Kenneth P. Green

May 15, 2012, 1:12 pm

There’s been a lot of talk lately about which political party is “more scientific,” which has obscured a much more important question, which is whether the institution of science itself is in decline.

Over at nature magazine, Daniel Sarewitz points out very troubling trends in the world of science:

Alarming cracks are starting to penetrate deep into the scientific edifice. They threaten the status of science and its value to society. And they cannot be blamed on the usual suspects — inadequate funding, misconduct, political interference, an illiterate public. Their cause is bias, and the threat they pose goes to the heart of research.

What Sarewitz is pointing to here isn’t political bias (though the overwhelming liberalness of scientists is well documented), but rather, to systematic biases that favor the constant production of “positive” findings with redeeming social value:

The belief is that progress in science means the continual production of positive findings. All involved benefit from positive results, and from the appearance of progress. Scientists are rewarded both intellectually and professionally, science administrators are empowered and the public desire for a better world is answered. The lack of incentives to report negative results, replicate experiments or recognize inconsistencies, ambiguities and uncertainties is widely appreciated — but the necessary cultural change is incredibly difficult to achieve.

And while most of the examples he gives are from biomedical research (where, ironically, it’s easiest to test hypotheses), Sarewitz suggests we view most scientific research with caution these days:

It would therefore be naive to believe that systematic error is a problem for biomedicine alone. It is likely to be prevalent in any field that seeks to predict the behaviour of complex systems — economics, ecology, environmental science, epidemiology and so on. The cracks will be there, they are just harder to spot because it is harder to test research results through direct technological applications (such as drugs) and straightforward indicators of desired outcomes (such as reduced morbidity and mortality).

As someone who routinely has to dispute crazy claims about climate science being “settled,” and about predictions of the climate 100 years from now as being “sound science,” I find it refreshing to see such a discussion in nature magazine. But as someone trained in the sciences, who believes that science is still our pre-eminent route to understanding the world around us, and that robust scientific institutions are necessary to human progress, I find the entire thing somewhat depressing.

Email to Author   |   Permalink   |   Comments (1)
Categories:  Energy and Environment   |   Tags:

Kenneth P. Green

Environmentalists to Canada: Drop dead

By Kenneth P. Green

May 14, 2012, 5:08 pm

In a recent editorial assault on Canada, oil-sands climate activist extraordinaire James Hansen (NASA) has basically declared war on Canada’s economy (not to mention our own). Hansen wrote:

Global warming isn’t a prediction. It is happening. That is why I was so troubled to read a recent interview with President Obama in Rolling Stone in which he said that Canada would exploit the oil in its vast tar sands reserves “regardless of what we do.”

He goes on to suggest that the U.S. actually take actions against the interests of our neighbors to the north:

President Obama has the power not only to deny tar sands oil additional access to Gulf Coast refining, which Canada desires in part for export markets, but also to encourage economic incentives to leave tar sands and other dirty fuels in the ground.

This is truly astonishing: A high ranking official at NASA has taken to the pages of the New York Times to lobby the president of the United States to physically embargo Canada’s oil and impose economic sanctions against Canada to force them to eschew tar-sand development and export.

As Bruce Carson, executive director of the Canada School of Energy and the Environment points out in the journal Policy Options, that would be unbearably painful for Canada:

The energy sector represents the largest single private investor of capital in Canada and continues to attract the single largest slice of foreign direct investment, and these investments are spread across the country. The energy sector is a major economic driver for Canada, accounting for 6.8 percent of Canada’s GDP in 2008 and directly employing 276,000 persons, or about 1.9 percent of total direct employment in Canada. In 2007, oil exports alone generated nearly $70 billion for the Canadian economy. The Canadian Energy Research Institute (CERI) estimates that the oil sands industry alone will add 3 percent to Canada’s GDP by 2020 and will create, during the period to 2020, 5.4 million person years of employment, 44 percent of which will be outside Alberta. Currently the oil sands industry contributes toward 112,000 jobs across Canada and, according to CERI, over the next 25 years it is expected to contribute over 11 million person years of employment to Canada and $1.7 trillion to the Canadian economy.

It would feel pretty bad on our end too:

•    Trade between the United States and Canada is huge and growing. Total trade between the two countries was worth $676 billion in 2008—more than one million dollars a minute.

•    Canada is the biggest export market for U.S. products. Moreover, Canada ranked number 1 in 35 states as the leading export market for goods in 2008, and number 2 in 11 others.

•    Trade creates jobs in the United States. More than 8 million U.S. jobs depend on trade with Canada. That’s 4.4% of total U.S. employment—1 in 23 American jobs depends on free and open trade with Canada.

Hansen’s most recent editorial has received sharp criticism for the over-reach of his claims about climate science, but what the media isn’t covering is an unprecedented call for environmental trade war with America’s largest trading partner. Let’s hope they catch up to that aspect of the story.

Email to Author   |   Permalink   |   Comments (1)
Categories:  Energy and Environment, Foreign and Defense, U.S. Economy   |   Tags: , , ,

Kenneth P. Green

Can we undo the plastic bag restrictions and taxes now?

By Kenneth P. Green

May 10, 2012, 10:49 am

Back in March of last year, I wrote about a pair of studies that should give “cloth grocery bag” fans pause. One study pointed out that reusable grocery bags actually have a bigger environmental footprint than regular, disposable plastic bags. The other study pointed out that reusing grocery bags increases your risk of food contamination and illness.

Hence, it was no surprise to see this headline turn up last night: “Oregon norovirus traced to reusable grocery bag.” Apparently, a girl’s soccer team from Beaverton passed around a reusable bag while sharing some cookies, and 6 of them managed to pick up norovirus, a stomach ailment that is making the rounds these days:

Norovirus causes about 21 million illnesses, 70,000 hospitalizations and 800 deaths a year in the United States. It caused 139 of 213 outbreaks of gastroenteritis in Oregon in 2010.

The germ can spread quickly in places like day care centers, nursing homes, and cruise ships.

Usually, it’s transmitted by direct human contact, but can contaminate surfaces. Leafy greens, fresh fruits and shellfish are commonly involved in foodborne outbreaks.

My conclusion from last year’s article still holds: “So the verdict seems clear: the traditional, thin plastic bag, though increasingly demonized and taxed, has better environmental performance and is likely to be considerably safer for human health. Time to wash and re-task those cloth bags. Maybe grow tomatoes in them or something.”

Email to Author   |   Permalink   |   Comments (4)
Categories:  Energy and Environment, Health Policy   |   Tags:

Kenneth P. Green

Are environmentalists shale-gas deniers?

By Kenneth P. Green

May 9, 2012, 1:10 pm

That’s the question energy-blogger John Hanger asks, in a post extolling the greenhouse-gas and pollution-reducing virtues of the shale-gas boom (emph. mine):

Yet, despite the massive carbon, mercury, soot, and lead benefits provided by the rise of gas, the bashing of gas is now politically correct, even a political imperative, in some but not quite all environmental circles. In green precincts, denying the environmental benefits of natural gas is becoming as required as denying climate change is in conservative politics.

Hanger, a former environmental regulator, who is anything but a climate skeptic points out that the shale-gas boom has led to immense reductions in greenhouse gas emissions:

One billion tons of carbon dioxide avoided is the result when one adds together the 630 million tons of carbon avoided from coal plant cancellations tracked by the Sierra Club with the 450 million tons avoided by the decrease in coal’s market share and corresponding increases in natural gas and renewable energy. That’s a huge amount equal to about 18% of US energy related carbon emissions and 3% of world carbon pollution.

I don’t usually care for the invocation of holocaust denial in climate discussions, so I’m unlikely to start responding to charges of climate-denial with shale-gas denial (though, it’s tempting!). But Hanger raises a point that will increasingly haunt environmentalists: The benefits of the shale-gas boom are so tremendous that environmental opposition can only seem increasingly irrational.

Email to Author   |   Permalink   |   Comments (4)
Categories:  Energy and Environment   |   Tags: ,

Kenneth P. Green

Sierra Club goes after natural gas

By Kenneth P. Green

May 7, 2012, 11:16 am

It is a mistake to take the green energy agenda at face value. While claiming that what they really want is simply to replace “dirty” energy with “clean” energy, the real agenda is to leave people with less abundant, less reliable, and vastly more expensive energy.

Hence, it is no surprise to see that Sierra Club, having demonized oil-driven transport, coal-powered electricity, and nuclear power, now has its sights set on preventing a transition to the fuel formerly portrayed as “clean-burning”: natural gas.

As we push to retire coal plants, we’re going to work to make sure we’re not simultaneously switching to natural-gas infrastructure,” Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune told National Journal in an interview on Wednesday. “And we’re going to be preventing new gas plants from being built wherever we can.

As with coal, Sierra Club and their allies are also against allowing trade in natural gas: They seek to prevent our exporting of either coal, or the new natural gas supplies changing global energy perceptions. Forget about that whole exports-help-the-economy thing.

Instead, the greens tell us, we’re to go for renewable forms of energy such as wind and solar power, which are “much more available.” Except, of course, when you actually try to build them. Then…

Groups sue solar company over San Luis Obispo County project.

Environmental groups sue solar project to protect wildlife habitat.

Conservation groups challenge North Sky River wind project.

The green energy-agenda isn’t about swapping dirty for clean. It’s about bait and switch.

Email to Author   |   Permalink   |   Comments (1)
Categories:  Energy and Environment   |   Tags: , , ,

Kenneth P. Green

Could methane be humanity’s 1,000-year fuel?

By Kenneth P. Green

May 3, 2012, 3:33 pm

Lest it be said that I don’t give credit where credit is due, the Department of Energy just announced the results of an experiment they conducted (with ConocoPhillips) to liberate methane (the main component of natural gas) from methane hydrates, an icy mixture of water and methane that forms under high pressure and low temperatures.

The world is remarkably rich in methane hydrates, offering the tantalizing possibility that we could power all of humanity’s energy needs for 1,000 years if we can figure out how to recover them cost-effectively.

In a nutshell, what the experiment showed was that one can pump carbon dioxide and nitrogen down into a methane hydrate deposit, dislodge the methane, and free it up for extraction.

The energy-optimist in me finds this idea very exciting: A world powered by inexpensive, unlimited, clean-burning natural gas is the stuff of utopian science fiction movies. And as Vaclav Smil pointed out, we’re already part of the way there.

The cynic in me, however, worries a bit about the timing of the announcement, and the shaping of the experiment. This particular method of extraction, for example, pre-supposes that one is going to have a very large supply of carbon dioxide, which is costly to capture. It would be very easy to see climate change activists suggesting that this is a rationale for instituting more (expensive) carbon-capture technology today predicated on the idea that we’ll need the carbon dioxide for methane hydrate production tomorrow (which they might then forestall on other environmental grounds).

But in this case, I choose to be an optimist rather than a cynic. And, while I’ve derided the utility of some government R&D in the past, I’ll be the first to admit that if the hydrate revolution pans out along these lines, the government will get some of the credit.

Email to Author   |   Permalink   |   Comments (2)
Categories:  Energy and Environment   |   Tags: ,

Kenneth P. Green

A rare bit of accountability for bureaucrats

By Kenneth P. Green

May 1, 2012, 1:06 pm

CORRECTION: I have been informed by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection that the article I based this blog post on was factually incorrect, and the author of the article I drew from has issued a retraction/correction. My apologies to anyone who may have been negatively impacted by my re-transmission of erroneous information.

Original post:

It’s remarkably rare to read about bureaucrats being held personally responsible for abuses of their power, but apparently, miracles can happen. Over on Legal Newsline, Michael Tremoglie reports:

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed Thursday a jury verdict finding officials of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection liable, individually, for damages totaling $6.5 million.

Apparently, bureaucrats at the Pennsylvania DEP didn’t want to issue permits needed for a steel-wool manufacturer (MFS) to continue operating. What’s particularly interesting is this:

The company brought the action for the defendants in an individual capacity for $6.5 million dollars in damages. Normally, government workers are protected by the doctrine of sovereign immunity from such claims when acting within the scope of their official duties, according to court documents.

But, MFS asserted First Amendment retaliation and equal protection claims claiming the employees acted outside of the scope of their employment. The jury agreed.

A few more verdicts like this, a few more ousted would-be-EPA-crucifiers, and the bureaucrats might be chastened.

Email to Author   |   Permalink   |   Comments (0)
Categories:  Energy and Environment   |   Tags: ,

Kenneth P. Green

A green energy lesson from Canada

By Kenneth P. Green

April 30, 2012, 11:53 am

A new study out of Canada’s Fraser Institute shows the big price tag that can accompany a little renewable energy. Looking at Ontario’s experience with renewable energy standards and feed-in tariffs, Gerry Angevine and colleagues at the Fraser Institute show how much renewables can crank up the cost of power:

It is estimated that, at the time of writing, contracts for over 140 terawatt hours (TW-hs) of electricity from renewable energy sources had been agreed to under the Ontario program, at a total cost of $28.4 billion (nominal dollars)—implying a weighted average electricity price of 20.31 ¢/kW-h. If the same amount of electricity had been contracted for at a rate of 7.3 ¢/kW-h (the average competitive residential rate as of December (2010), the price tag for the 140 TW-hs of electricity would have been approximately $10.2 billion. This implies that Ontario energy users could be burdened with an extra cost of at least $18 billion over the next 20 years. We estimate that residential electricity customers alone will be faced with an average annual increase in their electricity bill of $285 million (nominal dollars). Results from a Statistics Canada Input-Output (I/O) Model simulation indicate that a drop in discretionary personal spending of that magnitude could lead to a loss of close to 41,000 full time equivalent (FTE) jobs across the country over a 20-year period.

Angevine concludes:

Instead of mandating the deployment of renewable power generation technologies, a market-based approach is required to determine the most efficient mix of technologies for electric generation. This will help to ensure that electricity consumers are able to enjoy electricity prices that are generally as low as possible and foster innovation, economic growth, and prosperity.

Green energy: doubling electricity rates and killing jobs in an economy near you.

Email to Author   |   Permalink   |   Comments (0)
Categories:  Economic Policy, Energy and Environment   |   Tags: , ,

Kenneth P. Green

What comes after the renewabubble?

By Kenneth P. Green

April 18, 2012, 4:03 pm

A team of analysts from the Breakthrough Institute, the Brookings Institution, and the World Resources Institute have put out a meaty report on the pending collapse of the renewabubble as the inflating power of the Obama administration’s “stimulus” (ARRA) from 2009 runs out. It won’t be pretty:

Including ARRA-funded programs, annual federal clean tech spending is poised to decline to $11 billion by 2014, a 75 percent decline relative to the high of $44.3 billion reached in 2009. Furthermore, by the end of 2014, 70 percent of all federal clean energy policies in place in 2009 will have expired.

Even excluding ARRA funds, a sharp decline in federal support for clean tech sectors is evident, with normal, non-ARRA annual clean tech funding scheduled to decline by more than half, from a peak of $24.3 billion in 2010 to $10.9 billion by 2014.

Nearly three-quarters of all clean energy spending over the 2009-2014 period is directed to subsidize clean technology deployment and adoption, yet this funding is poised to fall sharply. Absent policy action, annual funding for these deployment policies will drop nearly 80 percent from 2009 to 2014, wiping away the large bulk of today’s current clean energy deployment regime.

The authors offer up a laundry list of “reform” ideas (some of which I find dubious) for clean-tech promotion, but it’s a worthwhile read. Heck, any time you have several liberal authors write that “The maintenance of perpetual subsidies is not a sustainable solution to the new challenges facing the US clean tech industry,” it’s a worthwhile read. You’ve had something of a Breakthrough right there.

Email to Author   |   Permalink   |   Comments (0)
Categories:  Economic Policy, Energy and Environment   |   Tags: , ,

Kenneth P. Green

Greens trying to turn coal exports into ‘another Keystone’

By Kenneth P. Green

April 9, 2012, 3:42 pm

As my colleague Steve Hayward pointed out in January, the U.S. may be burning less coal to generate energy, but we’re still producing and exporting plenty of it: some 80 million short-tons in 2010. That represents a lot of export value: at an average export price of $150 per ton, we’re looking at a $12 billion export market. Most people would see that as a good thing.

Alas, environmentalists are not amused, and just as they want to keep Canada’s oil-sand oil in the ground, they want to keep America’s coal in the hole:

Environmental groups like the Sierra Club are trying to block the coal-export terminals in Washington. (It’s quite possible that this could become another Keystone XL pipeline fight, especially since, as Eric De Place points out, the climate impact is potentially much larger.) Green groups are also trying to mount legal challenges to new coal leases in the Powder Basin River area…

And the green energy strangle continues.

Email to Author   |   Permalink   |   Comments (1)
Categories:  Economic Policy, Energy and Environment   |   Tags: ,

Kenneth P. Green

New York Times pours cold water on hybrid vehicle savings

By Kenneth P. Green

April 5, 2012, 4:38 pm

The Times reports that:

…opting for models that promise better mileage through new technologies does not necessarily save money, according to data compiled for The New York Times by TrueCar.com, an automotive research Web site. Except for two hybrids, the Prius and Lincoln MKZ, and the diesel-powered Volkswagen Jetta TDI, the added cost of the fuel-efficient technologies is so high that it would take the average driver many years — in some cases more than a decade — to save money over comparable new models with conventional internal-combustion engines. That is true at today’s pump prices, around $4, and also if gas were to climb to $5 a gallon, the data shows. Gas would have to approach $8 a gallon before many of the cars could be expected to pay off in the six years an average person owns a car.

And of course, there’s the Volt:

The Volt, which cost nearly $40,000 before a $7,500 federal tax credit, could take up to 27 years to pay off versus a Chevrolet Cruze, assuming it was regularly driven farther than its battery-only range allows. The payback time could drop to about eight years if gas cost $5 a gallon and the driver remained exclusively on battery power [a 25-50 mile range]. The Lundberg Survey, which tracks fuel prices, said in March that gas prices would need to reach $12.50 a gallon for the Volt to make sense purely on financial terms.

The Times tries to put a happy spin on this, citing customer satisfaction with efficient-car purchases, but there’s no dressing up the economic realities involved: hybrids are expensive environmental indulgences. Still another reason, as I wrote back in 2008, to stop the green carjacking.

Email to Author   |   Permalink   |   Comments (2)
Categories:  Economic Policy, Energy and Environment   |   Tags:

Kenneth P. Green

Should polar bears lose endangered species status?

By Kenneth P. Green

April 5, 2012, 12:59 pm

Back in 2008, when the Bush administration was on the threshold of declaring polar bears “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act, I pointed out that claims of polar bear endangerment were highly speculative:

Predictions of polar bear endangerment are based on two sets of computer models: one set predicts how much Arctic sea ice will melt as a result of global warming, and the other predicts how polar bear populations will respond. But computer models of climate change are known to be fraught with problems, and the ecological models used to predict polar bears’ response to climate shifts are equally limited.

 

It is essentially impossible to know whether polar bears are endangered and whether their habitat is threatened by manmade global warming or other natural climate cycles. What we do know about polar bears is that, contrary to media portrayals, they are not fragile, “canary in the coal mine” animals, but are robust creatures that have survived past periods of extensive deglaciation. Polar bear fossils have been dated to over 100,000 years ago, which means that polar bears have already survived an interglacial period when temperatures were considerably warmer than they are at present and when, quite probably, levels of summertime Arctic sea ice were correspondingly low.

 

Furthermore, I noted that listing the polar bear would come with costs:

If polar bears are placed on the endangered species list, the legal hurdles to oil and gas drilling will increase. Last year, Shell Offshore Inc. was about to start drilling in the Beaufort Sea when a court order halted the activity on the grounds that the federal government did not thoroughly assess the environmental impact before granting Shell permission to drill. In petitioning against the drilling, environmental groups invoked sea ducks, whales, and, of course, polar bears, as well as the effect that drilling could have on native populations. The U.S. Minerals Management Service estimates that the area holds the potential for 7 billion barrels of recoverable oil and 32 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas.

Well, we have a bit more evidence now regarding polar bear populations – they seem to be doing just fine:

The number of bears along the western shore of Hudson Bay, believed to be among the most threatened bear subpopulations, stands at 1,013 and could be even higher, according to the results of an aerial survey released Wednesday by the Government of Nunavut. That’s 66 per cent higher than estimates by other researchers who forecasted the numbers would fall to as low as 610 because of warming temperatures that melt ice faster and ruin bears’ ability to hunt. The Hudson Bay region, which straddles Nunavut and Manitoba, is critical because it’s considered a bellwether for how polar bears are doing elsewhere in the Arctic.

Of course, as I’ve observed before, environmentalists can never accept the existence of good news: all environmental news, no matter how positive it might seem on the surface, just has to be bad. Hence, the response from professor Andrew Derocher at the University of Alberta isn’t surprising:

Prof. Derocher said the 1,013 figure is derived from a range of 717 bears to 1,430. “It’s premature to draw many conclusions,” he said, adding that there were no comparative figures and the upper end of the range, 1,430, was highly unlikely.

The good professor demonstrates another axiom of environmentalist thought: environmental regulation is a one-way ratchet. Thus, it’s often premature to draw conclusions that might lead away from environmental regulation, but it’s never premature to draw conclusions that lead toward more environmental regulation.

The Bush administration, trying to score brownie points with environmentalists (who were never going to like them anyway), chose to list the polar bear as threatened without much in the way of hard evidence. In a world that is going to need all the oil and gas it can find, that decision should be revisited.

Email to Author   |   Permalink   |   Comments (0)
Categories:  Energy and Environment   |   Tags: ,

Kenneth P. Green

Germany’s renewabubble is popping along

By Kenneth P. Green

April 4, 2012, 10:19 am

According to Spiegel Online:

The German solar industry is at a turning point. The bankruptcy of Q-Cells this week shows that the days of German solar cell production are numbered. Asian competitors took the lead years ago, and German government subsidies were part of the problem.

It seems that the whole “subsidize green tech and capture the markets of tomorrow” thing isn’t working out so well with the early adopters:

…Q-Cells’ insolvency also comes as a great shock to Germany’s solar industry. It is already the fourth major bankruptcy in a sector in crisis, and it underscores the degree to which German solar firms are being outpaced by competition from Asia — despite billions in German government subsidies granted each year to the industry. And despite solar energy gradually becoming more competitive, the setbacks are rapidly mounting.

I’m not sure why it’s a shock when it’s the fourth bankruptcy in a row (I call that a trend, not a surprise), but here’s the best part: the Chinese used “clean energy” subsidies from Germany to undercut Germany’ solar-cell manufacturers:

In technological terms, solar cells are relatively easy to copy and manufacture, and Germany, with its comparably expensive labor market, is no longer the place to produce them. Much of the manufacturing of solar cells in Germany is already automated, but it is still considerably cheaper to operate a factory in a country like China, where costs are lower for everything from factory construction to paying the cleaning crew. In addition, Beijing has made the solar sector a priority and the government is providing many manufacturers with loans at highly favorable interest rates. Even worse, the German government has also directly and indirectly subsidized Chinese solar companies to the tune of €100 million as part of development aid efforts aimed at promoting China’s green industries.

And the renewabubbles go pop pop pop.

Email to Author   |   Permalink   |   Comments (0)
Categories:  Economic Policy, Energy and Environment   |   Tags: ,

Kenneth P. Green

Center for American Progress: Let’s scapegoat the oil companies!

By Kenneth P. Green

March 26, 2012, 4:50 pm

The interwebs are buzzing with a memo from CAP’s John Podesta and Geoff Garin, urging “interested parties” to join them in a campaign to demonize oil companies and blame them for high gas prices:

By engaging in a public debate centered on exposing oil companies’ successful efforts to rig the system to favor their own profits over the interests of American consumers and expose their deep political and financial ties to conservatives in Congress that continue to defend their billions of dollars in tax breaks, progressives can win the gas price message war.

And what are CAP’s “new” talking points? They want to:

1.    Ban exports of domestic oil — The heck with that whole “free-markets and international-trade” idea. How would we like it if China banned exports of rare earth elements? Oops, President Obama already took them to the WTO over that. Guess we wouldn’t like it.

2.    End subsidies to oil companies — I’m against subsidies, but what CAP is actually talking about is selectively taking away tax breaks from oil companies that other manufacturers get. It’s a bit like saying that you want to end housing subsidies by taking the mortgage-interest deduction away for left-handed people. And how raising taxes on the people who make your gasoline is supposed to bring prices down eludes me.

3.    Crack down on speculators — Speculators are the new bogeyman in the energy policy world, and they have magical powers. They never mistakenly bet on oil prices going down, they never miss the peak of oil prices when they’re going up, and they don’t exist when gas is around $2.50 per gallon. Of course, in the real world, speculation is called “hedging,” and is seen to have social benefits in ensuring price continuity and damping down price volatility in commodity markets. And, of course, if people had the ability to predict things the way the magical speculators do, there could be no Las Vegas, because the casinos would be broke instantly.

4.    More Fuel Efficient Cars and Trucks — Right. Making cars even more expensive, smaller, more dangerous, and less desirable to consumers is sure to help out the auto industry. Look how popular the GM Volt and Nissan Leaf are! They can’t sell the things even though the subsidy rate is nearly a fifth of the purchase price.

I suppose I should be grateful to CAP for releasing their talking points, as I regularly debate with CAPpies over energy policy. Still, I could wish for a little originality—these are the same arguments that the Left has offered up since the 1973 Arab oil embargo.

Email to Author   |   Permalink   |   Comments (4)
Categories:  Energy and Environment   |   Tags: , , ,

Kenneth P. Green

EPA-induced refinery closures linked to high gas prices

By Kenneth P. Green

March 23, 2012, 1:48 pm

An article in Investor’s Business Daily puts a greater share of responsibility for high gas prices on EPA’s perpetual regulatory crusade, particularly its influence on refineries:

The untold story behind soaring pump prices is that major U.S. refineries are going out of business and creating at least regional shortages thanks in no small part to costly EPA rules. Over just the past six months, three refineries supplying about half the gasoline, diesel and jet fuel to the East Coast have closed, including two owned by Sunoco Inc. They say they simply cannot make money anymore. Philadelphia-based Sunoco’s refinery business in the Northeast has lost almost $1 billion over the past three years as U.S. demand for gas fell and the cost of foreign crude soared. But over the same period, it had to shell out “significant expenditures for environmental projects and compliance activities” to satisfy onerous EPA mandates, according to the company’s latest 10-K report. In fact, it’s spent more than $1.3 billion just to comply with stricter EPA rules, which carry stiff fines or penalties for violations. Sunoco fretted that these regulatory costs would grow exponentially under the Obama administration, which has hit some of its refineries with fines.

It’s long been known that refinery costs contribute significantly to gas prices. As I wrote in a recent article for The American:

Another factor that may have contributed to the increased price of gasoline is the reduction in the number of operating refineries in the United States over the last 30 years. The number and capacity of U.S. refineries peaked in 1981, and, since then, 171 plants have closed, although the remaining plants have increased output to offset a loss of production. Though most of this reduction has been caused by the low profit potential of refineries, others see a significant cause in “extremely tight environmental restrictions, not-in-my-backyard community opposition, and the high cost of new construction.” Refinery profit margins have played a role in recent gasoline price hikes. The EIA suggests that “The sizable jump in retail prices this year reflects not only the higher average cost of crude oil compared to previous years, but also an increase in U.S. refining margins on gasoline (the difference between refinery wholesale gasoline prices and the average cost of crude oil) from an average of $0.34 per gallon in 2010 to $0.45 per gallon in 2011 and $0.42 per gallon in 2012.”

Though EPA’s official position is that every action they take is all benefit and no cost, facts—and gas prices—are stubborn things.

Email to Author   |   Permalink   |   Comments (0)
Categories:  Energy and Environment, Regulation   |   Tags: , ,

Kenneth P. Green

Would-be greenhouse gas controllers to hide agenda in ‘public health’

By Kenneth P. Green

March 22, 2012, 4:54 pm

Politico’s Erica Martinson and Jonathan Allen write:

Shhhh! Don’t talk about global warming! There’s been a change in climate for Washington’s greenhouse gang, and they’ve come to this conclusion: To win, they have to talk about other topics, like gas prices and kids choking on pollutants.

It seems that the greenhouse gas control crowd, realizing that people believe they’ve been exaggerating climate risks, and that nobody wanted to go along with their policy ideas, has decided, essentially, to lie: They are going to try to push greenhouse gas controls by claiming that they’re really about protecting the public health, and stopping children from having asthma attacks.

Speakers for the Natural Resources Defense council told Politico:

“We’re going to talk a lot about the health implications of dirty air,” said Heather Taylor, director of NRDC’s political arm.

And Dan Weiss, from the Center for American Progress told them:

“You don’t have to be James Carville to figure out that talking about people’s health and the health of their children … is going to make a difference to the average voter.”

Dan tells me that he was misquoted here, and I hope that’s true, because frankly, telling people that greenhouse gas emissions will harm children’s health is pretty much a straight-up lie: Most greenhouse gases are non-toxic at ambient concentrations; conventional pollutants that are emitted in conjunction with greenhouse gases are already heavily controlled, with most in steep decline; and in either event, there is no clear correlation between asthma rates and air pollution levels. In fact, the two are somewhat anti-correlated historically: asthma rates have risen as pollution levels have declined.

Email to Author   |   Permalink   |   Comments (1)
Categories:  Energy and Environment   |   Tags: , ,

Kenneth P. Green

Obama’s energy straw-man parade

By Kenneth P. Green

March 15, 2012, 3:58 pm

Once again, President Obama has turned to his favorite rhetorical trick, the parade of straw men:

“Lately, we’ve heard a lot of professional politicians — a lot of the folks who, you know, are running for a certain office, who shall go unnamed — they’ve been talking down new sources of energy. They dismiss wind power. They dismiss solar power. They make jokes about biofuels,” Obama said. “They were against raising fuel standards because apparently they like gas guzzling cars better. We’re trying to move towards the future, and they want to be stuck in the past.” Those same people, Obama said, would’ve thought the Earth was flat, that television wouldn’t last, that the automobile was only a passing fad. “If some of these folks were around when Columbus set sail, they must have been founding members of the Flat Earth Society,” he said. “They would not have believed that the world was round.”

Who would this be, exactly? As it happens, I don’t agree with the whole “all of the above” thing, but most of Mr. Obama’s opponents do in one form or another:

Newt Gingrich: “My administration will pursue an ‘all of the above’ American Energy Policy that allows expanded development of oil, natural gas, coal, biofuels, wind, and nuclear sources of energy.”

Mitt Romney: “Government has a role to play in innovation in the energy industry. History shows that the United States has moved forward in astonishing ways thanks to national investment in basic research and advanced technology. However, we should not be in the business of steering investment toward particular politically favored approaches. That is a recipe for both time and money wasted on projects that do not bring us dividends. The failure of windmills and solar plants to become economically viable or make a significant contribution to our energy supply is a prime example.”

“Concentrate alternative energy funding on basic research, utilize long-term, apolitical funding mechanisms like ARPA-E for basic research.”

Rick Santorum: “Expand domestic innovations and energy resources. This includes oil, natural gas, hydro, biomass, wind, solar, clean coal, and nuclear energy.”

Ron Paul: “Make tax credits available for the purchase and production of alternative fuel technologies.”

As for who likes gas-guzzling cars, well, the president really isn’t one to talk: His primary ride gets 8 MPG. But of course, comparing the presidential limo to a regular car would be, well, an unfair comparison, unlike, say, comparing people who disapprove of costly wind turbines and solar power parks to members of the Flat Earth Society.

Email to Author   |   Permalink   |   Comments (2)
Categories:  Energy and Environment, U.S. Politics   |   Tags: , , ,

Kenneth P. Green

Climate change derangement syndrome on the rise

By Kenneth P. Green

March 14, 2012, 4:14 pm

Recent news reports suggest that a new syndrome — call it Climate Change Derangement Syndrome (CCDS) — is on the rise.

Exhibit 1: Greenhouse Gases are Making You Fat:

Mad as it may sound, Danish researchers have announced a theory that may not only explain why people all over the world are getting fatter and fatter, but also warn of the serious consequences for life on Earth of continued pollution of the atmosphere by CO2 emissions. In itself, the theory is quite simple: CO2 contributes to making us fat.

Not surprisingly, the author’s recommendations are to eat more fruits and veggies, get plenty of exercise, and consider a return to living in caves. (Okay, I made the cave part up, but the rest is true).

Exhibit 2: The New Answer to Climate Change: Genetically Engineered Dwarf Vegans with Cat’s Eyes:

A new paper to be published in Ethics, Policy & Environment proposes a series of biomedical modifications that could help humans, themselves, consume less. Some of the proposed modifications are simple and noninvasive. For instance, many people wish to give up meat for ecological reasons, but lack the willpower to do so on their own. The paper suggests that such individuals could take a pill that would trigger mild nausea upon the ingestion of meat, which would then lead to a lasting aversion to meat-eating. Other techniques are bound to be more controversial. For instance, the paper suggests that parents could make use of genetic engineering or hormone therapy in order to birth smaller, less resource-intensive children.

Of course, those who read this article won’t be surprised at the upsurge in CCDS:

Researchers from the University of Sydney looked at patients attending an anxiety disorders clinic. They found one-third of the patients had anxiety about the effects of climate change. Their behaviours included checking and rechecking pets water bowls, light switches, taps and stoves. Researchers say while these behaviours are common in obsessive compulsive disorder, the rationale was unique.

It might be time to bring out the special “I hug myself” jackets.

Email to Author   |   Permalink   |   Comments (0)
Categories:  Economic Policy, Energy and Environment   |   Tags: ,

Kenneth P. Green

Five Friday energy failures

By Kenneth P. Green

March 9, 2012, 12:30 pm

In the news today, five epic energy-failures, brought to you by those who believe in a planned-energy economy:

1) Situation Normal, All Fisked Up — Consumer Reports decided to take a Fisker for a spin. The Fisker, an expensive electric sports car highly subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer isn’t exactly performing up to spec:

Our Fisker Karma cost us $107,850. It is super sleek, high-tech—and now it’s broken.

We have owned our car for just a few days; it has less than 200 miles on its odometer. While doing speedometer calibration runs on our test track … the dashboard flashed a message and sounded a “bing“ showing a major fault….“We buy about 80 cars a year and this is the first time in memory that we have had a car that is undriveable before it has finished our check-in process.”

2) The Ludicrous Prize — Our Department of Energy just gave out $10 million in the form of an L-Prize for the company that could develop the most environmentally friendly, and most affordable, LED light bulb. The prize went to Philips, which produced a 60-watt (equivalent) bulb for the bargain-basement price of only $50.00 each:

Retailers said the bulb, made by Philips, is likely to be too pricey to have broad appeal. Similar LED bulbs are less than half the cost. “I don’t want to say it’s exorbitant, but if a customer is only looking at the price, they could come to that conclusion,” said Brad Paulsen, merchant for the light-bulb category at Home Depot, the largest U.S. seller of light bulbs. “This is a Cadillac product, and that’s why you have a premium on it.”

3) Generous Motors — The People’s Car Company of America, formerly known as General Motors, is showing its generosity these days, with taxpayer money:

In a move little noticed outside of the business pages, General Motors last week bought more than $400 million in shares of PSA Peugeot Citroen – a 7 percent stake in the company. Because U.S. taxpayers still own roughly one-quarter of GM, they now own a piece of Peugeot. Peugeot can undoubtedly use the cash. Last year, Peugeot’s auto making division lost $123 million. And on March 1 – just a day after the deal with GM was announced – Moody’s downgraded Peugeot’s credit rating to junk status with a negative outlook, citing “severe deterioration” of its finances. In other words, General Motors essentially just dumped more than $400 million of taxpayer assets on junk bonds.

4) Keystone Krazy — Once again, the Obama administration has exerted itself to reduce oil imports from a hostile power. Those dangerous, poutine-peddling Canadians don’t have a chance:

President Barack Obama headed off an election-year showdown over energy policy when the Senate defeated a Republican measure that would have authorized the building of TransCanada Corp. (TRP)’s Keystone XL oil pipeline. Obama lobbied wavering Senate Democrats before yesterday’s vote. He urged them to reject an amendment to legislation funding transportation projects that would have overturned his administration’s decision to deny a permit for the pipeline until an alternative route was proposed to bypass an environmentally sensitive area in Nebraska. The measure failed to pass on a 56-42 vote. Sixty votes were required to advance the amendment.

5) Algae Zero — In the past, I’ve written positively about the prospects for algae-based fuels to contribute to our liquid-fuel supply. Algae produces hydrocarbons naturally, and have a lot of advantages over land-based biofuels. The private sector has already shown a lot of interest in algae fuels, but it is still decades away (at least) from significant market penetration. That hasn’t stopped the president from proposing it as a remedy for high gasoline prices, and converting it into a partisan issue:

President Obama’s latest renewable-energy fixation is algae. During a speech at the University of Miami, he touted his administration’s $24 million investment in the fuel, saying, “Believe it or not, we could replace up to 17 percent of the oil we import for transportation with this fuel that we can grow right here in the United States.”

As I told National Review reporter Nash Keune, this is a terrible development. Studies show that applied government R&D only displaces private capital, reducing the discipline that market forces exert on researchers. Politicizing algae fuels, I suspect, will only “force responsible private-sector money out of the effort, lure irresponsible rent-seekers into the process, and make funding of it an unreliable political football.”

Email to Author   |   Permalink   |   Comments (3)
Categories:  Energy and Environment   |   Tags: ,

Kenneth P. Green

How do voters feel about high gas prices?

By Kenneth P. Green

March 8, 2012, 2:54 pm

They don’t like ‘em: CBS post-primary exit polls in seven states found that “77 percent of those voting in seven Super Tuesday states say rising gas prices were the most important factor in their vote.”

The article observes that “Voters in Super Tuesday contests say gas prices were the most critical factor in their vote.”

Will that have implications for the 2012 presidential election? You betcha:

On Wednesday in Washington D.C., there was a hearing where Republicans and Democrats offered very different views of how to deal with this issue from a policy perspective: Democrats are urging conservation and tax breaks for electric vehicles with Republicans urging a dramatic expansion of drilling. So, according to the exit polls, that division will be a key factor in elections this fall.

Watch for more disingenuous claims by the Obama administration about recent increases in domestic oil and gas production, which happened despite their best efforts, not because of them. And, watch for Democrats to crank up the Bueller mode, claiming credit for inventing the technology that led to the shale gas boom.

Email to Author   |   Permalink   |   Comments (1)
Categories:  Energy and Environment, U.S. Politics   |   Tags: , ,

Kenneth P. Green

EPA: Using the best science, or the best science money can buy?

By Kenneth P. Green

March 6, 2012, 4:53 pm

The Environmental Protection Agency likes people to believe that its rulemaking is grounded only in absolute, top-quality, independent science. According to EPA’s website, Administrator Lisa Jackson will settle only for the “best science:”

As a scientist herself, Jackson has vowed that EPA’s efforts will follow the best science, using it as “the backbone for EPA programs.” She has also ensured that EPA adheres to the rule of law and acts with unparalleled transparency.

In 2007, EPA said:

A new ozone standard will be based on the best science and meet the obligation established under the Clean Air Act to protect the health of the American people.

To that end, Ms. Jackson apparently asked for more input from EPA’s ostensibly “independent” advisors:

In January 2010, EPA proposed stricter standards for smog. As part of EPA’s extensive review of the science, Administrator Jackson will ask the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) for further interpretation of the epidemiological and clinical studies they used to make their recommendation. To ensure EPA’s decision is grounded in the best science, EPA will review the input CASAC provides before the new standard is selected.

EPA’s handbook on peer-review suggests that independence means that:

Independence is freedom from institutional, ideological, or technical bias regarding the issues under review and is necessary for objective, fair, and dependent on the competence and responsible evaluation of the work product. If a selected reviewer has a particular scientific or technical perspective, it may be desirable to balance the review with peer reviewers with other perspectives. Ideally, peer reviewers should be free of real or perceived conflicts-of-interest or there should be a balancing of interests among peer reviewers. If there are potential conflicts of interest (real or perceived), they should be fully identified to ensure a credible peer review.

Now, I’m not one to argue that people’s beliefs are inherently influenced by whoever donates to their efforts. I believe that researchers probably self-select themselves into working for entities that already share their basic set of beliefs, and they’ll move into or out of such entities if they find their core beliefs are being stifled or threatened.

But EPA, and the environmental movement in general, does not believe as I do: they are constantly claiming that anyone who opposes them must simply be a shill for one special interest or another. They do not allow people to serve as voting members on their advisory boards if that person works in industry, for example, on the presumption that pay taints the advisor.

In 2007, for example, the environmental group NRDC wrote EPA observing that:

The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) imposes requirements on agencies when they establish or utilize any advisory committee, defined as a group of individuals, including at least one non-federal employee, which provides collective advice or recommendations to the agency. 5 U.S.C. App. II, § 3(2). When an agency seeks to obtain such advice or recommendations, it must ensure the advisory committee is “in the public interest,” id. App. II, § 9(2), is “fairly balanced in terms of points of view represented and the function to be performed,” id. § 5(b)(2), and does not contain members with inappropriate special interests. Id.§ 5(b)(3). Committee membership should exclude financially conflicted members as much as possible, so that committees are largely composed of scientists who are able to provide a fair and complete review of all relevant data or issues. If industry representatives have specific knowledge or expertise of value to the deliberations of a committee, then invitations to address the committee during public meetings are appropriate. However, individuals with financial conflicts should not be serving as members of the SAB [Science Advisory Board].

But apparently, “transparency” and “independent” only mean what EPA wants them to mean, which may not comport with the average person’s interpretation: it turns out that virtually every member of the EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee is extensively funded by … EPA.

As blogger Steve Milloy points out:

According to EPA’s extramural grants database:

• CASAC chairman Jonathan Samet is listed a principal investigator on $9,526,921 in EPA grants.

• Board member George Allen is listed as a principal investigator on $3,907,111 in EPA grants.

• Board member Ana Diez-Roux is listed as a principal investigator on $31,343,081 in EPA grants.

• Board member H. Christopher Frey is listed as a principal investigator on $2,956,342 in EPA grants.

• Board member Armistead Russell is listed as a principal investigator on $20,130,736 in EPA grants.

• Board member Helen Suh is listed as a principal investigator on $10,962,364 in EPA grants.

• Board member Kathleen Weathers is not listed as a principal investigator on any EPA grants; but her employer, the Cary institute of Ecosystem Studies, is listed as a the lead institution in $3,570,926 in EPA grants.

Something to remember the next time you hear an EPA administrator justifying an intrusive new environmental rule based on the “independent” science judgment of EPA’s top-notch scientific advisory councils.

Email to Author   |   Permalink   |   Comments (1)
Categories:  Energy and Environment   |   Tags:

Kenneth P. Green

The downsides of wind power

By Kenneth P. Green

March 5, 2012, 1:34 pm

Matt Ridley has a great summary of the downsides of wind power in a Telegraph essay:

To the nearest whole number, the percentage of the world’s energy that comes from wind turbines today is: zero. Despite the regressive subsidy (pushing pensioners into fuel poverty while improving the wine cellars of grand estates), despite tearing rural communities apart, killing jobs, despoiling views, erecting pylons, felling forests, killing bats and eagles, causing industrial accidents, clogging motorways, polluting lakes in Inner Mongolia with the toxic and radioactive tailings from refining neodymium, a ton of which is in the average turbine — despite all this, the total energy generated each day by wind has yet to reach half a per cent worldwide.

British decision-makers, Ridley observes, are beginning to see through the idiocy of chasing the wind:

Though they may not admit it for a while, most ministers have realised that the sums for wind power just don’t add up and never will. The discovery of shale gas near Blackpool has profound implications for the future of British energy supply, which the government has seemed sheepishly reluctant to explore. It has a massive subsidy programme in place for wind farms, which now seem obsolete both as a means of energy production and decarbonisation. It is almost impossible to see what function they serve, other than making a fortune from those who profit from the subsidy scam.

We can only hope that American decisionmakers will figure this out and change course before we wind up with an unstable grid, vast areas of land blighted with giant wind turbines, and a legacy of untold thousands of useless turbines that have to be decommissioned with taxpayer money.

Email to Author   |   Permalink   |   Comments (16)
Categories:  Energy and Environment   |   Tags:

Kenneth P. Green

Did government create the shale gas boom?

By Kenneth P. Green

February 27, 2012, 4:57 pm

As I wrote in AEI’s online magazine The American, governments, and their supporters, are fond of pulling what I call a Ferris Bueller: seeing a parade pass by, they jump up on a float, sing loudly, dance vigorously, and then claim credit for the parade.

Or, as I told a talk-radio host who observed that oil and gas production has increased since Obama was elected, “Yes, well the date on the calendar has also advanced since Obama was elected, but that doesn’t mean Obama caused either to advance!” (We debunked the Obama-the-oil-producer claim here.)

Sadly, some otherwise pragmatic environmentalists (such as the guys from the Breakthrough Institute) are hopping up on the parade float and joining the Obama administration’s Twist and Shout, now claiming credit for having ushered in the boom in unconventional natural gas and oil coming from the nation’s heartland. In an email alert today, they say:

It wasn’t that long ago that the U.S. was cast as the global climate villain, refusing to sign the Kyoto accord while Europe implemented cap and trade.

But, as we note below in a new article for Yale360, a funny thing happened: U.S. emissions started going down in 2005 and are expected to decline further over the next decade, while Europe’s cap and trade system has had no measurable impact on emissions. Even the supposedly green Germany is moving back to coal.

Why? The reason is obvious: the U.S. is benefitting from the 30-year, government-funded technological revolution that massively increased the supply of unconventional natural gas, making it cheap even when compared to coal.

Alas, the reason for the natural gas boom is not nearly as obvious as the Breakthrough Boys make it out to be:

1) One winning game does not a champion make. Nordhaus and Shellenberger take the fracking example in isolation, and ignore persuasive literature showing that “industrial policy” (the formal term for government picking winners and losers) has a history of abject failure. Some, such as Terence Kealey at the University of Buckingham, point out that Japan’s efforts at industrial policy (through an agency called MITI) were simply a disaster.

2) Displacement is not addition. Studies show that government “investment” in applied research and development does not add new money to the pot, it displaces private capital, and does so disproportionally. When government steps in, it displaces more money than it throws in the pot.

Read the details here.

Email to Author   |   Permalink   |   Comments (2)
Categories:  Energy and Environment   |   Tags:

Kenneth P. Green

Life imitates Hogan’s Heroes

By Kenneth P. Green

February 23, 2012, 9:34 am

According to White House Spokesperson Jay Carney, President Obama did not cancel the Keystone pipeline, and he has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with high gas prices. According to the White House, it’s not EPA regulations that fragment the gasoline market and drive up refining costs; it’s not his foreign policy or its impacts on world oil production; it’s not his (fabulously denied) crusade to slow fossil fuel production on federal lands; it’s not his economic policy effects on the value of the dollar; it’s just a fact of life and signs of an economic recovery!

And there is nothing—nothing!—that he can do about it other than raise taxes to punish oil companies, and exhort people to live smaller lives with less energy.

One can’t help but be reminded of Sargent Schultz, from “Hogan’s Heroes”: “I see nothing! I was not here! I did not even get up this morning!”

Email to Author   |   Permalink   |   Comments (0)
Categories:  Energy and Environment, U.S. Politics   |   Tags: ,

« Older Entries

The American Enterprise Institute takes no institutional positions on policy advocacy or political campaigns. The views expressed on The Enterprise Blog represent those of the individual writers.

AEI