EPA wants to be friends with the Oil companies. Just kidding.

This is probably not productive. At least we know where the EPA stands on such a large sector of the US economy. Because remember, any punitive taxes or financial burden the US government places on energy corporation, will not be passed down to the consumer. No, the energy company will accept the additional financial cost, and say 'yes, we should make less money'. And all of their shareholders will agree. Oh wait, that's not true in any sense of the word. Read the original here.

EPA Official's 'Philosophy' On Oil Companies: 'Crucify Them' - Just As Romans Crucified Conquered CitizensBy Craig Bannister
April 25, 2012
CNSNews.com

Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) took to the Senate floor today to draw attention to a video of a top EPA official saying the EPA’s “philosophy” is to “crucify” and “make examples” of oil and gas companies - just as the Romans crucified random citizens in areas they conquered to ensure obedience.

Inhofe quoted a little-watched video from 2010 of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) official, Region VI Administrator Al Armendariz, admitting that EPA’s “general philosophy” is to “crucify” and “make examples” of oil and gas companies.

In the video, Administrator Armendariz says:

“I was in a meeting once and I gave an analogy to my staff about my philosophy of enforcement, and I think it was probably a little crude and maybe not appropriate for the meeting, but I’ll go ahead and tell you what I said:

“It was kind of like how the Romans used to, you know, conquer villages in the Mediterranean. They’d go in to a little Turkish town somewhere, they’dfind the first five guys they saw and they’d crucify them.

“Then, you know, that town was really easy to manage for the next few years.”

“It’s a deterrent factor,” Armendariz said, explaining that the EPA is following the Romans’ philosophy for subjugating conquered villages.

Soon after Armendariz touted the EPA’s “philosophy,” the EPA began smear campaigns against natural gas producers, Inhofe’s office noted in advance of today’s Senate speech:

“Not long after Administrator Armendariz made these comments in 2010, EPA targeted US natural gas producers in Pennsylvania, Texas and Wyoming.

“In all three of these cases, EPA initially made headline-grabbing statements either insinuating or proclaiming outright that the use of hydraulic fracturing by American energy producers was the cause of water contamination, but in each case their comments were premature at best – and despite their most valiant efforts, they have been unable to find any sound scientific evidence to make this link.”

In his Senate speech, Sen. Inhofe said the video provides Americans with “a glimpse of the Obama administration’s true agenda.”

That agenda, Inhofe said, is to “incite fear” in the public with unsubstantiated claims and “intimidate” oil and gas companies with threats of unjustified fines and penalties – then, quietly backtrack once the public’s perception has been firmly jaded against oil and natural gas.

Energy Secretary Chu Admits Administration OK with High Gas Prices

Well, he did warn us that his plan would raise energy prices.  And he doesn't think that Americans can drive SUV's or heat our homes to whatever we want to (and can pay for) and have other countries be ok with it.  So, I suppose it shouldn't be a complete surprise that the administration is ok with high gas prices.  Although, I'm not sure whether to be unnerved or comforted that they flat out admitted it.  Read the original here.

Energy Secretary Chu Admits Administration OK with High Gas Prices
Yahoo! News
By Mark Whittington | Yahoo! Contributor Network – 18 hrs ago

President Barack Obama's Secretary of Energy Stephen Chu uttered the kind of Washington gaffe that consists of telling the truth when inconvenient. According to Politico, Chu admitted to a House committee that the administration is not interested in lowering gas prices.

Chu, along with the Obama administration, regards the spike in gas prices as a feature rather than a bug. High gas prices provide an incentive for alternate energy technology, a priority for the White House, and a decrease in reliance on oil for energy.

The Heritage Foundation points out that hammering the American consumer with high gas prices to make electric and hybrid cars more appealing is consistent with Obama administration policy and Chu's philosophy. That explains the refusal to allow the building of the Keystone XL pipeline and to allow drilling in wide areas of the U.S. and offshore areas.

The consequences of the policy are not likely to be of benefit to the Obama administration. The Republican National Committee has already issued a video highlighting the spike in gas prices and the failure of the administration to address the issue.

Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has issued a half-hour video touting an energy plan he claims would result in $2.50 a gallon gasoline. The plan is based on unfettered drilling for oil and gas instead of a reliance on green energy. Gingrich has also savaged Obama's touting of algae based biofuel as "weird."

Chu has likely highlighted an issue Republicans are going to pick up and run with. Americans are not going to be appreciative of schemes to hit them in the wallet so the American economy can shift to green energy. Besides American traditional adherence to the free market, the idea of being fleeced by a deliberate government policy is likely to be greeted with anger.

Add into the mix green energy fiascos like Solyndra, and Chu might well have kindled a full blown scandal.

How the Obama administration reacts to the expected firestorm is open to question. Green energy is as part of its fundamental religion as is universal health care, another unpopular Obama policy. If it tries to bull ahead, the electorate will likely punish Obama and the Democrats. If it tries to backtrack, Obama looks weak and facilitating, and likely will still not appease gas strapped Americans experiencing price shock at the gas pump.

Pelosi cares about jobs, right?

Well....union jobs at least.

via Hotair.com, read the original here.
Heck Yeah, The Government Should Shut Down That Scab Plant In South Carolina « Hot Air

Heritage finds a nice catch in this CNBC interview with Nancy Pelosi last week, as Maria Bartiromo queries Barack Obama’s favorite House Speaker on the role of government in business expansion. Should agencies like the NLRB have the authority to shut down private-sector plants simply for not being unionized? Pelosi barely waits for the question to conclude before blurting out her “yes”:


In an interview late last week, House Minority Leaeder Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) told CNBC that Boeing should either unionize its production facilities in South Carolina, or shut them down entirely.

“Do you think it’s right that Boeing has to close down that plant in South Carolina because it’s non union?” asked host Maria Bartiromo. Pelosi’s reply: “Yes.”

The minority leader quickly added that she would rather it simply unionize and stay open. But barring unionization, by Pelosi’s reasoning, it should simply shut down.

Lachlan Markay wonders when Pelosi and the Democrats became so anti-jobs, anti-worker, and … anti-democracy:


Pelosi may or may not know that workers at the South Carolina plant in question voted resoundingly (199-68) to decertify their union two years ago. Government policies that would close the plant for being a non-union shop would simply be punishing those workers for exercising their right to determine union representation for themselves.

Government should have no interest in whether a particular plant is unionized or not, let alone assert authority in this area. Government exists to uniformly enforce the law without bias. Agencies like the NLRB want to use the color of authority to favor unions because they see that as a preferred social-engineering outcome — whether or not workers themselves want union representation or not.

We have come far from the legitimate exercise of government in this and many other areas. It’s time to demand a return of government to its proper boundaries, and perhaps eliminating altogether those agencies that have arrogated to themselves the power to impose their preferred social prescriptions through the abuse of agency authority. That would include the NLRB, the EPA, and a number of other federal entities.

Hope you don't need a lot of electricity...

Read the original here.

Obama’s Plan To Make Your Electric Bills Jump 60 Percent
Written By : Warner Todd Huston

Only a few days ago I wrote about how Obama’s new EPA rules would force Americans to pay up to 60% more on their electric bills[1]. This weekend, theChicago Tribune said the same thing[2].

Leading off saying, “Consumers could see their electricity bills jump an estimated 40 to 60 percent in the next few years,” the Trib went on to highlight the same destructive EPA rules I wrote about on Friday.


Coal-fired plants historically have been one of the cheapest ways to generate electricity, but operating costs are expected to increase significantly because of upgrades needed on older plants to meet new environmental regulations. The Illinois Power Agency estimates that by 2017 the energy portion of bills could jump 65 percent from today’s rates.

But one thing the Tribune did not mention. Obama campaigned on forcing us to pay that 60% more on our electric bills. Obama wants to bankrupt the electric industry, hewants us to lose jobs, he wants us to be soaked to pay more for our energy. He wants this because he feels America should be taken down a notch or two He wants to hobble this country. It’s what he’s said since day one…

Obama promised to bankrupt our energy producers, he wants us to pay through the nose, he insists that our nation be burdened with multiple layers of regulations, and he wants us to be hurting. Barack Obama wants this nation to be poorer. It is pretty plain.

VN:D [1.9.8_1114]

References
^ Obama’s new EPA rules would force Americans to pay up to 60% more on their electric bills (www.publiusforum.com)
^ Chicago Tribune said the same thing (www.chicagotribune.com)

Why is Gas expensive?

Read the original here.

Just Who Is Gouging Us On Gasoline?
Americans are fed up with high gas prices, and some U.S. senators are getting disgusted enough to act. Appearing in front of an Exxon gas station last week, Charles Schumer and several other senators called for the elimination of tax deductions oil companies use in their business of finding, refining, and marketing the precious energy we use. It is time we are outraged by blatant greed at the gas pump, they implored. Some of us agree, but for different reasons. Let's have the courage to name those who are getting the biggest cut from our gasoline dollars, and put a stop to it.

Understand where our money goes when we fill up at our corner station. Oil company profit is one place: the after-tax profits earned by the most successful oil companies in America works out to about 8-9% of revenues. That's 8 cents of every dollar we spend at the pump, and it's been much lower in years when prices are squeezed by too much supply. Sometimes there are no profits, but rather huge costs, if mistakes that get nasty are made in exploration or transportation (e.g. Exxon Valdez and BP Gulf spills).

The senators standing in front of the gas station would have you think such profit is the biggest chunk of your purchase price -- but it isn't even close. The taxes on gasoline at retail amount to a national average of 47 cents per gallon (including federal taxes of 18 cents, state and local taxes of 18 cents, and sales/other taxes at retail of more than 10 cents). And before taxpayers have paid that princely sum (to people who haven't invested a penny to produce the product), the operating profits of the explorers are taxed at 34% -- which is always passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. States get into the act here too, taxing the retailers' profits after taxing the product at the pump. And let's not forget the other costs that drive up the gallon price, such as drilling restrictions that force explorers 5 miles deep under the ocean, transportation regulations and taxes, refining regulations, licenses, leases, and myriads of others.

Pulling huge quantities of wealth out of the ground isn't easy. Finding and refining oil takes knowledge of geology, drilling technology, finance, transportation logistics, and environmental science. Pulling even larger amounts of wealth out of taxpayers, however, takes only two things: ignorance and envy.

You see, average Americans have no concept of what it takes to deliver a gallon of gasoline to their neighborhoods -- for 1/10 the price/oz. of the latte they buy on the same corner. Most Americans aren't geologists. And they don't like high prices. So Americans routinely grumble about oil company profits, without any knowledge of the relative size of them or what risks it takes to earn them. Yet it is clearly the government which benefits most from our purchases at the pump, without lifting a finger to make the product.

Ignorance and envy are something our senators are banking on when they rail against oil profits. Our media culture loves to help them. But if corporations are to be "accountable" for egregious profits, where is the senatorial and media outrage over other company profits? Microsoft earns record profits of $18 billion, more than 30% of its revenues net of all taxes. The latte-maker Starbucks earns 11% of revenue. But there is no move from Mr. Schumer & Friends decrying the write-offs of Microsoft's development costs. Why isn't Mr. Schumer standing in front of Best Buy railing against the taxpayer "subsidy" of Microsoft? Do Microsoft's contributions to his campaign have any influence on his choice of targets? Is Microsoft (or any company) more worthy of egregious gain than Exxon?

If the public weren't so ignorant and envious of such capitalist exercises as making gasoline, perhaps they might turn their attention toward the biggest cost in their lives and also the biggest reason gas prices are high: government. If the government would spend less time punishing and restricting energy exploration and delivery, we might have more energy. If the government, however, wants to raise the after-tax costs of producing energy, we will surely get less, driving prices higher still.

As government elites gain greater money and power from exploiting our ignorance, they posture again about taxpayers and pump prices. But they really don't care about taxpayers and pump prices at all. Nothing in their behavior over energy policy leads to that conclusion. Rather than sticking up for taxpayers and consumers, the biggest pigs at the trough are looking for another way to stick it to taxpayers and consumers. In classic Atlas Shrugged fashion, the know-nothings mooching off the productivity and ingenuity of capitalists take the public stage to throw sand in the gears of a vital American output engine. The gouging continues.

You should just get a new car...

Here's the money quote.

"Obama needled one questioner who asked about gas prices, now averaging close to $3.70 a gallon nationwide, and suggested that the gentleman consider getting rid of his gas-guzzling vehicle.

“If you’re complaining about the price of gas and you’re only getting 8 miles a gallon, you know,” Obama said laughingly. “You might want to think about a trade-in.”'

If only cash for clunkers hadn't gotten rid of so many perfectly well running used cars. Oh well, I'm sure mocking citizens who question you is perfectly presidential. Read the original here.

Obama: Expect Little Short-Term Relief On Gas Prices - Fall River, MA

FAIRLESS HILLS, Pa. —

Pitching the promise of energy independence, President Barack Obama cautioned Wednesday that it’s going to be tough to transition from America’s oil-dependent economy and acknowledged there’s little he can do to lower gas prices over the short term.

“I’m just going to be honest with you. There’s not much we can do next week or two weeks from now,” the president told workers at a wind turbine plant. It’s a theme Obama’s struck before as he tries to show voters he’s attuned to a top economic concern with gas prices pushing toward $4 a gallon.

Obama said he wants to move toward “a future where America is less dependent on foreign oil, more reliant on clean energy produced by workers like you.” That will happen by reducing oil imports, tapping domestic energy sources and shifting the nation to renewable and less polluting sources of energy, such as wind, the president says. He has set a goal of reducing oil imports by one-third by 2025.

But the president said it won’t happen overnight and if any politician says it’s easy, “they’re not telling the truth.”

“Gas prices? They’re going to still fluctuate until we can start making these broader changes, and that’s going to take a couple of years to have serious effect,” Obama said.

Obama needled one questioner who asked about gas prices, now averaging close to $3.70 a gallon nationwide, and suggested that the gentleman consider getting rid of his gas-guzzling vehicle.

“If you’re complaining about the price of gas and you’re only getting 8 miles a gallon, you know,” Obama said laughingly. “You might want to think about a trade-in.”

The president spoke at a town hall meeting at Gamesa Technology Corp., a Spanish company that makes giant turbines that use wind to generate electricity. According to the White House, it is the first overseas company of its kind to set up shop in the U.S.

Back in Washington, negotiations continued on a budget deal to avert a government shutdown Friday and Obama urged lawmakers to get it done.

The president said he wants to cut spending, but not at the expense of cutting priorities like energy and education.

As fuel prices rise because of growing demand worldwide and political unrest in oil-producing nations in North Africa and the Middle East, drivers are feeling pinched at the pump. Republicans blame Obama and his policies and he, in turn, is striving to show the public that he gets it.

Gasoline prices rose another 2 cents Tuesday to a new national average of just over $3.68 a gallon, according to AAA and other sources. Obama’s visit to Gamesa was his fourth energy event since March 11. He’s scheduled a fifth for Friday in Indianapolis.

Obama argues that shifting to cleaner and domestic energy sources will help create jobs and boost U.S. competitiveness.

Education is another item on Obama’s competitiveness agenda. Obama’s appearance keeps a promise he made to the National Action Network when he spoke there as a presidential candidate in 2007. Obama pledged to return, win or lose.

He returns just two days after launching his re-election bid. He is facing a key constituency that at times has scolded him for not being attentive enough to certain issues, such as double-digit black unemployment, but continues to hold him in high regard.

Obama deflects such criticism by arguing that his polices to expand the economy, create jobs and improve the education system, among other goals, will help the country as a whole, blacks included.

Ninety-five percent of blacks who voted, opted for Obama in 2008. A Gallup poll released last week showed his job approval among blacks holding at 84 percent, about the same as six months earlier.

AP National Writer Jesse Washington contributed to this report.

Read more: http://www.heraldnews.com/archive/x675823241/Obama-Expect-little-short-term-relief-on-gas-prices#ixzz1IqIETtQz

Drilling would create or kill jobs?

Read the original here.  Watch the video here.

More Drilling In U.S. Is ‘A Problem, Not A Solution’ To Creating Jobs, Says Democrat Member Of House Labor Subcommittee

(CNSNews.com) -- Rep. Rob Andrews (D-N.J.) said that increasing oil drilling “off the coast” is “a problem, not a solution” to creating jobs in the United States. Andrews recommended that House Republicans bring legislation to the floor if they think more drilling will create jobs.

Appearing at a press conference with Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) on job creation, Rep. Andrews said, “I agree with my colleague and friend that drilling for oil off the coast is a problem, not a solution, but let’s get back to the main point here that if the Republicans really believe that was really a job-creating idea, why don’t they put it on the floor?”

Andrews, the ranking member of the House Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions Subcommittee, continued, “I mean, walking into this room and having a discussion about it is one thing, but we’re in the minority. We can’t get our ideas on the floor but they can. So if that’s such a great idea, they ought to do it. I wouldn’t vote for it because I think it’s a poor idea. But it says what they think of the idea if they don’t put it on the floor.”

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a member of the House Budget Committee, said there would be no “immediate” reduction of gas prices from more drilling.

“We need to be reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and, in general, specifically, we need to reduce our dependence on oil, foreign oil. But adding to our dependence on fossil fuels is not the answer,” she said.

“We need to be taking a long-term view,” she said. “It’s been proven over and over again that there would no immediate return on a reduction in gas prices or a significant expansion of our energy resources by beginning drilling for more oil right now -- and that to me is not the real responsible way to explore creating jobs.”

Wasserman added, “It’s just another example of how they [House Republicans] can have all the press conferences they want but they still have no legislation that would create jobs – not even that.”

According to the Congressional Research Service[1] (CRS), the total proved reserves and technically recoverable amount of oil in the United States, as of 2009, was 164.6 billion barrels. The United States consumes about 6.8 billion barrels of oil each year (of which about 60 percent is imported).


Rep. Robert Andrews (D-N.J.)

As for natural gas in the United States, the CRS report, using data from the federal Energy Information Administration, shows there are 1,407.4 trillion cubic feet – America consumes 22.74 cubic feet of natural gas per year.

As for coal, the report shows that the United States has a technically recoverable amount of 261 billion short tons; the country consumes about 1 billion short tons per year.

Not counting technological advances in locating new deposits of fossil fuel and discounting any imports from other countries, the United States by itself, given current demand, has at least enough oil for 24 years, enough natural gas for 62 years, and enough coal for 261 years.

Those numbers do not include new deposits of fossil fuels that may be found in the future and as technology advances. Nor do the numbers include the estimated worldwide reserves from selected nations (Saudi Arabia, Canada, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait and Venezuela), which total 1.3 trillion barrels of oil; 6.6. trillion cubic feet of natural gas; and 930 billion short tons of coal, according to the CRS report.

When those fuels are converted into one source of measurement, such as barrels of oil, says the CRS, then worldwide reserves from those six nations equal 5.7 trillion barrels of oil.

On a related note, potentially recoverable reserves of oil from shale – an expensive and currently cost-prohibitive operation – are estimated to be between 800 billion and 1.38 trillion barrels in the United States alone, according to the CRS report. These recoverable reserves – not counting imports -- could potentially meet current U.S. demand for oil for another 147 years.

Michael W. Chapman contributed to this report.


References
^ Congressional Research Service (epw.senate.gov)

Government to mandate how to do laundry

Read the original here.


Sam Kazman: How Washington Ruined Your Washing Machine

By SAM KAZMAN[1]

It might not have been the most stylish, but for decades the top-loading laundry machine was the most affordable and dependable. Now it's ruined—and Americans have politics to thank.
In 1996, top-loaders were pretty much the only type of washer around, and they were uniformly high quality. When Consumer Reports tested 18 models, 13 were "excellent" and five were "very good." By 2007, though, not one was excellent and seven out of 21 were "fair" or "poor." This month came the death knell: Consumer Reports simply dismissed all conventional top-loaders as "often mediocre or worse."
How's that for progress?
The culprit is the federal government's obsession with energy efficiency. Efficiency standards for washing machines aren't as well-known as those for light bulbs, which will effectively prohibit 100-watt incandescent bulbs next year. Nor are they the butt of jokes as low-flow toilets are. But in their quiet destruction of a highly affordable, perfectly satisfactory appliance, washer standards demonstrate the harmfulness of the ever-growing body of efficiency mandates.
The federal government first issued energy standards for washers in the early 1990s. When the Department of Energy ratcheted them up a decade later, it was the beginning of the end for top-loaders. Their costlier and harder-to-use rivals—front-loading washing machines—were poised to dominate.
Front-loaders meet federal standards more easily than top-loaders. Because they don't fully immerse their laundry loads, they use less hot water and therefore less energy. But, as Americans are increasingly learning, front-loaders are expensive, often have mold problems, and don't let you toss in a wayward sock after they've started.
When the Department of Energy began raising the standard, it promised that "consumers will have the same range of clothes washers as they have today," and cleaning ability wouldn't be changed. That's not how it turned out.
In 2007, after the more stringent rules had kicked in, Consumer Reports noted that some top-loaders were leaving its test swatches "nearly as dirty as they were before washing." "For the first time in years," CR said, "we can't call any washer a Best Buy." Contrast that with the magazine's 1996 report that, "given warm enough water and a good detergent, any washing machine will get clothes clean." Those were the good old days.
In 2007, only one conventional top-loader was rated "very good." Front-loaders did better, as did a new type of high-efficiency top-loader that lacks a central agitator. But even though these newer types of washers cost about twice as much as conventional top-loaders, overall they didn't clean as well as the 1996 models.
The situation got so bad that the Competitive Enterprise Institute started a YouTube protest campaign, "Send Your Underwear to the Undersecretary." With the click of a mouse, you could email your choice of virtual bloomers, boxers or Underoos to the Department of Energy. Several hundred Americans did so, but it wasn't enough to stop Congress from mandating even stronger standards a few months later.
Now Congress is at it once again. On March 10, the Senate Energy Committee held hearings on a bill to make efficiency standards even more stringent. The bill claims to implement "national consensus appliance agreements," but those in this consensus are the usual suspects: politicians pushing feel-good generalities, bureaucrats seeking expanded powers, environmentalists with little regard for American pocketbooks, and industries that stand to profit from a de facto ban on low-priced appliances. And there are green tax goodies for manufacturing high-efficiency models—the kind that already give so many tax credits to Whirlpool, for example, that the company will avoid paying taxes on its $619 million profit in 2010.
Amazingly, the consensus also includes so-called consumer groups such as the Consumer Federation of America and Consumers Union. At last week's hearing, the federation touted a survey supposedly showing overwhelming public support for higher efficiency standards. But not a single question in that survey suggested that these standards might compromise performance. Consumers Union, meanwhile, which publishes Consumer Reports, claims that new washers can't be compared to old ones—but that's belied by the very language in its articles.
We know that politics can be dirty. Who'd have guessed how literal a truth this is?
Mr. Kazman is general counsel of the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

References

1. ^{^} SAM KAZMAN (online.wsj.com)

Don’t count on constant electricity under renewable energy, says UK electricity CEO

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/03/05/lawrence-solomon-don%E2%80%99t-count-on-constant-electricity-under-renewable-energy-says-uk-electricity-ceo/

Lawrence Solomon: Don’t count on constant electricity under renewable energy, says UK electricity CEO | FP Comment

Lawrence Solomon^[1]  March 5, 2011 – 10:20 am

Wind power will require lifestyle change
Electricity consumers in the UK will need to get used to flicking the switch and finding the power unavailable, according to Steve Holliday, CEO of National Grid, the country’s grid operator. Because of a six-fold increase in wind generation, which won’t be available when the wind doesn’t blow, “The grid is going to be a very different system in 2020, 2030,” he told BBC’s Radio 4^[2]. “We keep thinking that we want it to be there and provide power when we need it. It’s going to be much smarter than that.
“We are going to change our own behaviour and consume it when it is available and available cheaply.”
Holliday has for several years been predicting that blackouts could become a feature of power systems that replace reliable coal plants with wind turbines in order to meet greenhouse gas targets. Wind-based power systems are necessary to meet the government’s targets, he has explained, but they will require lifestyle changes.
Under the so-called “smart grid” that the UK is developing, the government-regulated utility will be able to decide when and where power should be delivered, to ensure that it meets the highest social purpose. Governments may, for example, decide that the needs of key industries take precedence over others, or that the needs of industry trump that of residential consumers. Governments would also be able to price power prohibitively if it is used for non-essential purposes.
Smart grids are being developed by utilities worldwide to allow the government to control electricity use in the home, down to the individual appliance. Smart grids would monitor the consumption of each appliance and be capable of turning them off if the power is needed elsewhere.
Holliday’s startling comments^[3] on BBC Radio 4 were reported by The Daily Telegraph.
Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe^[4] and the author of The Deniers.LawrenceSolomon@nextcity.com^[5]

Posted in: FP Comment^[6]  Tags: Climate change^[7], global warming^[8], Lawrence Solomon^[9],solar^[10], wind^[11], electricity^[12], smart meters^[13], smart grid^[14], electricity rates^[15], Smart Grid City^[16], remewables^[17], National Grid^[18], Steve Holliday^[19], lifestyle changes^[20],electricity grid^[21], electricity network^[22], smart electricity grid^[23]

References

1. ^{^} View all posts by Lawrence Solomon (opinion.financialpost.com)
2. ^{^} he told BBC’s Radio 4 (probeinternational.org)
3. ^{^} startling comments (probeinternational.org)
4. ^{^} Energy Probe (ep.probeinternational.org)
5. ^{^} LawrenceSolomon@nextcity.com (opinion.financialpost.com)
6. ^{^} View all posts in FP Comment (opinion.financialpost.com)
7. ^{^} Climate change (opinion.financialpost.com)
8. ^{^} global warming (opinion.financialpost.com)
9. ^{^} Lawrence Solomon (opinion.financialpost.com)
10. ^{^} solar (opinion.financialpost.com)
11. ^{^} wind (opinion.financialpost.com)
12. ^{^} electricity (opinion.financialpost.com)
13. ^{^} smart meters (opinion.financialpost.com)
14. ^{^} smart grid (opinion.financialpost.com)
15. ^{^} electricity rates (opinion.financialpost.com)
16. ^{^} Smart Grid City (opinion.financialpost.com)
17. ^{^} remewables (opinion.financialpost.com)
18. ^{^} National Grid (opinion.financialpost.com)
19. ^{^} Steve Holliday (opinion.financialpost.com)
20. ^{^} lifestyle changes (opinion.financialpost.com)
21. ^{^} electricity grid (opinion.financialpost.com)
22. ^{^} electricity network (opinion.financialpost.com)
23. ^{^} smart electricity grid (opinion.financialpost.com)

So angry that I can hardly type...

The News has an article about the recently passed House energy bill.

What makes me so angry?

1. All Michigan Democrats voted for the bill, even though it will kill Michigan jobs and continue our one-state recession.
2. The authors claim that Americans would save $2 billion in gas taxes without mentioning that Americans would spend $4 billion a year in costs to implement.
3. The authors claim that consumers would save "as much as $1,000 a year" in fuel costs, without mentioning that they would spend between $5,000 and $7,000 more for a new car - or between $1,000 and $2,300 a year (plus interest payments) for a car.

What kills me about this is, first, the dishonesty. This is not going to provide net financial savings for consumers. There is not a single hybrid on the market which is a net financial savings over the same vehicle with a standard power train. Eliminating the ability of GM and Ford to sell the only vehicles they make a profit on will not mysteriously "save" the companies by "forcing" them to "get with the times."

I hate to break it to the hippies, but no one in this country buys a car based on mileage. Even those who buy hybrids generally do it based on cosmetic reasons and precious few Americans buy hybrids. Cars in America are sold based on power, performance, safety, and utility - all items which will need to be reduced in order to comply with these guidelines.

Secondly, the solution to emissions problems is being placed primarily on Michigan. Cars account for about 25% of emissions but are expected to account for 90% of the solution. I'm still waiting to see the bills demanding a reduction in the emissions from California beef farmers or mandating "no-till" farming, even though agriculture dwarfs the automotive sector in emissions and switching strictly to "no-till" farming would have the same net effect as raising average fuel economy to 50 mpg.

Either way, we in Michigan have been betrayed by members of our representation. The UAW, the Union workers, the employees and management at GM, Ford, and Chrysler have placed their faith in Michigan's Democrats to protect them. They then turned on them, stabbed them in the back, and are working actively (knowingly or not) to destroy the auto industry and further wreck Michigan's economy. Is it too much to ask that Michigan voters hold these individuals accountable? They are: John Dingell, Sander Levin, John Conyers, Dale Kildee, Carolyn Cheeks-Kilpatrick, and Bart Stupak.

When the next round of Union layoffs comes around, know that these men and women actively worked to make it happen.

House OKs 35 mpg rule
But energy bill faces Senate, Bush opposition
The Detroit News

WASHINGTON - The U.S. House approved a landmark energy bill Thursday that increases fuel economy standards by 40 percent by 2020 but the measure faces substantial hurdles in the Senate and a likely veto by the White House.

"Democratic leaders in the House today pushed a partisan bill that members had very little opportunity to study before the vote, which they knew was unacceptable to the president and had no chance of being signed into law," the White House said. It is "a misguided approach and if it made it to the president's desk, he would veto it."

Raising fuel efficiency requirements to an average 35 miles per gallon for the total fleet of cars and light trucks built in the United States is the centerpiece of the bill approved by the House in a 235-181 vote.

The bill also requires the use of 36 billion gallons of biofuels by 2022 and forces utilities to produce 15 percent of electricity from renewable sources, such as wind and solar power. The measure will be funded by rescinding $21 billion in tax breaks, largely for oil companies.

The Final Betrayal

John Dingell has completed his sell-out of the American Auto Industry. The auto fuel economy standards will increase 40% over the next 13 years, which will cost the auto industry - and let's be honest, that means it will cost Michigan - $4 billion a year. Dingell has completely surrendered the entire battle without a fight, something I have been predicting for months. He wants to avoid a contentious debate in the House, he wants to avoid giving up the power he has in his party, and he has made it clear that his power and his party come before his constituents.

Lawmakers Reach Gas Mileage Boost Deal
Fox News

WASHINGTON - An agreements among congressional Democrats - including those from auto industry states - to support a 40 percent increase in vehicle fuel efficiency is likely to be the tonic needed to push energy legislation through Congress before Christmas.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., a longtime protector of the auto industry, settled their differences in an agreement late Friday on the fuel economy, or CAFE, issue, clearing the way for a House vote on a broader energy bill, probably on Wednesday.

Automakers would be required to meet an industry wide average of 35 miles per gallon for cars and light trucks, including SUVs, by 2020, the first increase by Congress in car fuel efficiency in 32 years.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada called the compromise "good news" and said he hoped to take up the legislation quickly after the House acts.

GM = "Green Motors?"

A Detroit Free Press article this morning reports that the Chevrolet Tahoe hybrid has won the Green Car of the Year award at the L.A. auto show. Of the five finalists, three were GM vehicles - the Tahoe, the Saturn Aura Hybrid, and the Chevrolet Malibu Hybrid. GM appears to be abandoning the small-car hybrid market to Toyota in order to concentrate on midsize cars, trucks, and SUVs. Being the first to market with a full-size hybrid SUV (the Tahoe) combined with their other hybrid products (the Saturn VUE, Aura, and Malibu) should help encourage consumers on the coasts to give GM a try once again. Here's to hoping that this helps the company's - and Michigan's - turnaround.

Green In A Big Way
Hybrid Tahoe's honor helps Chevy redo image
The Detroit Free Press

LOS ANGELES - Chevrolet's new campaign to establish itself as an environmentally friendly brand got an early endorsement when its Tahoe hybrid full-size SUV was named Green Car of the Year at the Los Angeles Auto Show on Thursday.

The hybrid Tahoe is a revolutionary vehicle that combines the room and capabilities SUV owners need with a 50% increase in city fuel economy to 21 m.p.g., Green Car Journal editor and publisher Ron Cogan said. The hybrid is to go on sale early next year. No price has been set.

"This is a milestone in many respects", he said. "People don't think green when SUVs are concerned and generally for good reason. Chevrolet's Tahoe hybrid changes this dynamic."

The Tahoe's win capped a strong performance for General Motors, which also placed its Saturn Aura and Chevrolet Malibu hybrid midsize sedans among the five finalists. The Nissan Altima sedan and Mazda Tribute SUV were the other finalists for the award, which is given by the editors of Green Car Journal and a panel of outside judges that includes performance-car legend Carroll Shelby and undersea explorer Jean-Michel Cousteau.

TMQ versus Al Gore

Gregg Easterbrook, the Brookings Scholar and ESPN football writer, is a passionate environmentalist. Unlike many environmentalists, however, he is adamantly against the dishonesty, self-promotion, and hypocrisy with which many environmentalists treat their work. In today's Tuesday Morning Quarterback column, he takes serious aim at Al Gore. It's well down the page if you want to read more. I'd strongly suggest doing so. His column is a great piece of writing and always worth a look.

Those Hollywood Searchlights Around Gore's Home Sure Eat Power
Tuesday Morning Quarterback for ESPN

Gore wasn't the first quack to win the Nobel Peace Prize, and history suggests he will not be the last. Gore spent eight years in the White House, and in that time took no meaningful action regarding greenhouse gases. The Clinton-Gore administration did not raise fuel economy standards for cars and trucks or propose domestic carbon trading. Though Clinton and Gore made a great show of praising the Kyoto Protocol, they refused even to submit the treaty to the Senate for consideration, let alone push for ratification. During his 2000 run for the presidency, Gore said little about climate change or binding global-warming reforms. In the White House and during his presidential campaign, Gore advocated no consequential action regarding greenhouse gases; then, there was a political cost attached. Once Gore was out of power and global-warming proposals no longer carried a political cost - indeed, could be used for self-promotion - suddenly Gore discovered his intense desire to demand that other leaders do what he had not! It is a triumph of postmodernism that Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize for no specific accomplishment other than making a movie of self-praise. Gore caused no peace nor led to any reconciliation of belligerent parties nor performed any service to the dispossessed, the achievements the Peace Prize was created to honor. All Gore did was promote himself from Hollywood, and for this, he gets a Nobel. Very postmodern.

An annoying complication of Gore's Nobel is that few realize the award was given jointly to him and to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an organization well worthy of distinction. The IPCC is a group of scientists who have spent two decades studying climate change n obscurity, and in many cases without pay. The IPCC's efforts have been selfless, motivated only by concern for society. Had the Nobel Peace Prize gone solely to the IPCC, it would have been a great day.

An astonishing measure of how out-of-touch the Norwegian Nobel Committee seems is that it gave a prize to Gore for hectoring others about energy consumption in the same year it was revealed that Gore, at his home, uses 20 times the national power average. Gore's extraordinary power waste equates to about 377,000 pounds of greenhouse gases annually, or about 20 Hummer Years worth of global warming pollution. (A Hummer Year, TMQ's metric of environmental hypocrisy, is the amount of carbon dioxide emitted in a typical year of driving a Hummer). When his utility bill made the news - though apparently not in Oslo - Gore responded by saying he buys carbon offsets. That takes you back to the offset problem: All offsets do is prevent greenhouse gas accumulation from increasing. If you really believe there will be a global calamity unless greenhouse gas emissions are reduced 80 percent, as Gore told the Live Earth crowd, you would not by carbon offsets and cut your own energy use. Instead, Gore flies around in fossil-fuel-intensive jet aircraft telling others: Do as I say, not as I do!

After news of Gore's personal energy consumption broke, Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider told The Associated Press the utility bill was justified because "Al and Tipper both work out of their home." This raises the question - what kind of work are they doing? Perhaps reanimating Frankenstein; in Frankenstein movies, there is always a lot of electricity crackling wastefully about. Here are other possible reasons the Gores' home requires so much energy:

• Gore is building a time machine to return to Palm Beach, Fla., in October 2000.
• The former vice president is doing everything he personally can to cause global warming, so he can claim his predictions came true.
• Gore is growing marijuana in his basement. (Note from the corporate legal department: This is strictly a joke, ESPN is not accusing Al Gore of growing marijuana. We stand by our allegation that he is a sinister kingpin of international rare-bird smuggling.)
• Members of Gore's species require high power levels to maintain human form.
• Al and Tipper don't just leave the lights on when they make out, they leave the lights on all over the house.
  

A question about driving...

If 70% of the nation's private car driving is due to commuting to work, what do you think the effect would be if we went from a 5 day, 8 hour per day work week to a 4 day, 10 hour per day work week? If we're cutting commuting by 20% and commuting makes up 70% of miles driven, even if we have a marginal increase of recreational driving on those days off, wouldn't we still be drastically cutting back on the total amount of driving being done?

Hooray for Hollywood

Interesting article, but one problem: they suggest that driving a hybrid car can somehow save money. This is a fallacy. Most hybrids NEVER will save their owner money.

Hollywood Sending Mixed Climate Messages
Brietbart.com

LOS ANGELES (AP) - From "green carpets" at awards shows to organic fruit served to actors on sets, Hollywood is going all out to promote itself as being environmentally hip. But is it all just show.

No amount of public service announcements or celebrities driving hybrid cars can mask the fact that movie and TV production is a pretty gritty industrial operation, consuming enormous amounts of power to feed bright lights, run sophisticated cameras, and feed a cast of thousands.

Studios' back lots host cavernous soundstages that must be air conditioned to counter the heat produced by decades-old lighting technology. Huge manufacturing facilities consume wood, steel, paint, and plastic to build sets that are often torn down and tossed out after filming ends.

The energy guzzling continues on the exhibition side, too, with multiplexes drawing millions of kilowatts to power old-school popcorn makers and clunky film projectors that cash-strapped theater owners are reluctant to replace.

A two-year study released last year by the University of California at Los Angeles concluded that special effects explosions, idling vehicles and diesel generators make the entertainment industry a major Southern California polluter, second only to the oil industry.

Solar powered water heaters saves money

If the cost to go solar is $10,000 per house then the cost of raising CAFE by 10%, about $3.6 billion a year, would be enough to install solar power generation on 360,000 homes each year, or about 5,000,000 over the 14 years that CAFE would be raised. This would amount to about 4% of the total number of homes in the U.S. Why aren't we as a nation having a discussion about this?

Sunny Days and Hot Showers: Solar power hits the roof
Detroit Free Press

Jim Svensson already led a pretty environmentally friendly lifestyle from his gas-sipping Ford Aspire to his composting and recycling habits when he decided to go one step further and install a solar-powered water heater.

Two years later, he has cut his natural gas bills in half.

"It's very practical," he said. "The coolest thing is, I'm creating energy myself, using the sun."

Svensson, 48, of Ann Arbor took part in the Great Lakes Renewable Energy Association's Go Solar program, which offers reduced-cost solar energy system to homeowners. The program has been offered in Ann Arbor and Grand Rapids, but is now expanding to Oakland County, said Jennifer Malinowski, a program manager for the association.

Are biofuels not good after all?

A Reuters article quotes the Organization for Economic Coorperation and Development (OECD) which states that biofuels may cause more harm ot the world than fossil fuels. Their issues like primary in rising food prices, inefficiency of biofuels, land diversity, and the environmental costs of agricultural. They do leave out two key issues:

1. A raise in worldwide food prices helps the world's poor. Low prices for food means that the world's poor, who are largely subsistence farmers, have little reward for expanding their production beyond their own needs. A higher worldwide price for food will help Third World farmers raise capital so they can improve their quality of life. This will yield improvements for Third World life.
2. At our current pace, we have less than 100 years of oil in the world. Environmental issues aside, we need a replacement for this and biofuel is the only real alternative we currently have.

Biofuels may harm more than help
Reuters

PARIS - Biofuels, championed for reducing energy reliance, boosting farm revenues and helping fight climate change, may in fact hurt the environment and push up food prices, a study suggested on Tuesday.

In a report on the impact of biofuels, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) said biofuels may "offer a cure that is worse than the disease they seek to heal."

"The current push to expand the use of biofuels is creating unsustainable tensions that will disrupt markets without generating significant environmental benefits," the OECD said.

"When acidification, fertilizer use, biodiversity loss and toxicity of agricultural pesticides are taken into account, the overall environmental impacts of ethanol and biodiesel can very easily exceed those of petrol and mineral diesel," it added.

The OECD therefore called on governments to cut their subsidies for the sector and instead encourage research into technologies that would avoid competing for land use with food production.

Chris Dodd is still running?

Ummm - what is Chris Dodd on?

His plan for Iraq? Ethnic cleansing. At least that's a touch better than Obama's "I'm cool with genocide" plan.

His plan for energy reduction? 50 MPG average for cars in 2017. Why stop at 50? If you're going to start making up impossible engineering challenges, why not just dictate that all cars must run by turning household trash into neatly pressed twenty dollar bills? I do want to point out, though, that he personally drives a frickin' SUV. Why he needs a 25 MPG SUV when apparently the rest of us should be driving around in golf carts is beyond me. I also love that he says that they're "moving to the energy-efficient light bulbs." Say he has 30 bulbs in his house. They're about $3 each and take about 20 seconds to install. For $100 and a half hour's work, he could replace every bulb in his house. What's he mean by "moving to..."? Oh, and he has "storm windows". That's good of him. Good to see he's really taking the fight to the streets.

Things I'd like to see these guys who are preaching environmental consciousness to do:

1. Swap out every light bulb possible at home with a compact fluorescent, LED, or other low-wattage light bulb.
2. Drive an American-made, union-built car which gets over 30 miles per gallon.
3. Install energy efficient furnaces, programmable thermostats, and high-quality insulated walls, doors, and windows.
4. Use more energy efficient lawn care equipment such as push mowers and engines which comply with the most recent EPA standards.
5. Live in a modestly sized home.

These items don't cost much money and, in fact, are usually more cost effective than the alternative. Dodd is trying to cripple the auto industry and put hundreds of thousands, perhaps, millions, of Americans out of jobs with his ridiculous 50 MPG desire. If he's going to destroy that many lives, is it too much to ask that he spend $100 and a half an hour to replace all of his light bulbs.

Chris Dodd pushes the energy envelope
Salon

Chris Dodd hasn't been out front on environmental issues during his 32 years in Congress, but he's clearly aiming to outgreen his competitors in the 2008 presidential campaign. He has earned props in environmental circles for being the only candidate with the political cojones to call for a corporate carbon tax as a way to fight global warming, and for endorsing a strict fuel-economy standard that would require new cars and trucks to get 50 miles per gallon by 2017, Dodd even ran what was billed as the first presidential candidate ad focused on global warming.

This senator from Connecticut isn't gaining a big boost in popularity from his aggressive environmental stances; he's hovering at 1 to 2 percent in the polls. But will he raise the bar for a strong green agenda in the 2008 presidential race? I called Dodd at his Senate office to find out how much substance there is behind his bold proposals.

Everybody's got the goals right: We're all for energy independence, for dealing with global warming, for increasing job opportunities in the country. The difficulty breaks down in how do you get there. If you're going to be truly be effective in reaching those goals, you've got to be very candid about you how get there.

"Human Energy?" Try "Exploitation of the Poor."

What a surprise - yet another carbon offsetting program turns out to be a sham. The U.K.'s largest carbon offsetting company, Climate Care, is apparently offsetting CO2 expenditures by suing the same sham tactics exposed by others: they pay the poor to use backbreaking manual labor instead of diesel power, plant trees already set to be planted, and upgrade stoves already set to be upgraded.

It should come to no one's surprise that the carbon offsetting programs largely consist of exploiting the poor so that the rich can feel good about their excesses. Why bother taking a crowded commercial flight when you can fly a private jet and pay some poor Indian villager to engage in backbreaking labor instead of using a more efficient diesel engine?

The most strikingly abhorrent issue with the whole project is definitely the use of manual pumps, "human energy" in Climate Care's terminology, is that instead of running a diesel pump for a couple of hours a month, these individuals are spending several hours a day on manual pumps - time which could be spent with one's family, educating oneself, learning new skills, or planting more fields. In short, "human energy" is sapping the poor's ability to live a more worthwhile life and to work their way up from poverty.

But, hey, as long as the rich, liberal elites can fly on a private jet across the world for a ridiculous publicity stunt instead of flying commercial or - god forbid - skipping the trip altogether, I guess it's all worthwhile.

To cancel out the Co2 of a return flight to India, it will take one poor villager three years of pumping water by foot. So is carbon offsetting the best way to ease your conscience?
The London Times

When David Cameron flew to India to open a JCB factory for a party donor, green-thinking supporters could rest assured that his visit would be carbon neutral. "We are offsetting all our emissions through Climate Care," the Tory leader wrote on his blog. "As well as planting trees, they also invest in renewable energy projects in the developing world."

Somewhere in the Indian countryside, a farmer is about to repay Mr. Cameron's debt to the planet. Climate Care's latest enterprise is to provide "treadle pumps" to poor rural families so they can get water on to their land without using diesel power. The pumps are worked on by stepping on pedals. If a peasant treads for two hours a day, it will take at least three years to offset the CO2 from Mr. Cameron's return flight to India.

Climate Care, whose clients include the Prince of Wales, is the leading brand in the fast-expanding but unregulated field of offsetting, in which consumers pay to make good the energy they emit through travel or heating. Those businesses claim that they can negate pollution by planting trees or by paying for renewable power such as windmills or hydroelectrics.

Climate Care says that it has offset a million tonnes of carbon since it was founded ten years ago. It has just made the claim that it will sell enough offsets to neutralise 1 per cent of carbon emissions in Britain next year. But it was targeted last week by activists dressed as "red herrings", who delivered fish to its Oxford premises. "Climate Care are misleading the public, making them believe that offsetting does some good," said Joss Garman, a protester. "It's like being a member of the RSPCA then going home and kicking a dog."

John Edwards claims environmental credentials

Despite driving an SUV, flying around the country in a private jet, and heating a 30,000 square foot home - including its full-size, indoor basketball court - John Edwards' campaign has the audacity to claim that he's "conserving at home." Of course, his campaign hides behind the idea that he's buying "carbon offsets" and this is his purchased indulgence. There's no reason he couldn't be content with, say, a nice compact sedan for his small family or a comparably reasonable 4,000 square foot house.

No matter what sort of hybrid engine he puts in his SUV or what sort of energy efficiency improvements he has for his 30,000 square foot house, he's still producing massively more pollution that the people to whom he is preaching environmental responsibility.

Edwards vs. the SUV
The Politico

Speaking to machinists in Florida today, John Edwards said he'd expect Americans to sacrifice their inefficient cars, and specifically to give up their SUVs, AP reports.

But campaigning turns out to be a pretty high-carbon practice. All the candidates ride around, particularly in Iowa, in big cars - Hillary rode an 18-wheeler; Obama rented an RV; and Edwards, whose convoy is often mini-van centric, had this Cadillac SRX Crossover beside him in Iowa on his arrival from announcing his candidacy for president in New Orleans, according to his Flikr stream.

Actually, Edwards isn't anti-SUV - he seems to be quite consciously avoiding the trap of appearing to demand that Americans drive only Trabants. His spokesman says he drives a hybrid SUV, the Ford Escape, at home in North Carolina, though the AP reported in April that the family has an SUV and a small truck as well.

His website says "Edwards believes that everyone should be able to drive the car, truck, or SUV of their choice and still enjoy high fuel economy."