Energy

00Publius Contributor - Budget - Business - Democrats/Leftists - Energy - News - Science - Society/Culture - Warner Todd Huston

Wanna ‘Save the Earth,’ Illinois? Well PAY UP!

May 28, 2008 by

-By Warner Todd Huston

The Senate’s most influential global warming bill is the Lieberman-Warner global climate change bill, a bill that claims to combat so-called global warming. Well, it won’t do much for global warming (in fact, nothing man can do can either cause or stop climate change) but it WILL cost each and every person in the country more money in higher energy bills, lost productivity and jobs as well as higher regulatory costs.

So, Illinois, let’s say you have been bamboozled by this global warming hysteria. You say that you want Lieberman-Warner to pass so that we can “do something” about your mythical global catastrophe you are so sure is coming. Well, open up you wallets and pay up, because it’s gonna cost you.

Let’s start with your energy costs. By 2025 the Lieberman-Warner bill will add $263 dollars a year top your electric costs. Natural gas prices will be artificially forced up $178 and gasoline an additional $324 dollars a year. Now this will be ON TOP of all the other price increases that will be naturally added to the costs of these products. (The costs are based on current prices)

Worse will be the loss of jobs. By 2030 over 100,000 jobs will be lost to the state of Illinois because of Lieberman-Warner. Personal income will fall statewide by over 5 MILLION dollars.

And this is just Illinois. There are similar numbers of the loss in every state n the Union. Some states take an even bigger hit than Illinois.

So, if you want to “save the earth,” expect to be living in grass huts because the so-called cure will send us all back to the dark ages.

Continue reading “Wanna ‘Save the Earth,’ Illinois? Well PAY UP!”

Budget - Business - Democrats/Leftists - Economy/Finances - Education - Energy - Military - News - Security/Safety - Society/Culture

So You Thought It Was Just At The Gas Pump?

May 25, 2008 by

-By Rick Norris

During a May 7th interview on the CNN Glen Beck program, oil industry analyst Byron King suggested the possibility of $200 per barrel of oil by October of this year. Be prepared for shocks in places other than at the gas station.

As the cost of oil increases daily, our national security is affected significantly. For instance, Clayton B. Reid writes in the March 2008 issue of NewsMax that, “…for every $10.00 per barrel increase, US Air Force fuel costs rise $610 million per year.”

At three gallons per mile for an Abrams tank one can only guess at the increased costs for our armored forces. Operational costs for all the services just for getting from point “A” to point “B” are set to increase at an alarming rate solely due to fuel expenditures. Costs for heating or cooling living quarters on military posts and stations in the U.S. and around the world will also rise accordingly.
Continue reading “So You Thought It Was Just At The Gas Pump?”

00Publius Contributor - Business - Congress - Democrats/Leftists - Economy/Finances - Energy - GOP - Media Bias - News - Science - Society/Culture - Taxes - Warner Todd Huston

Who Is Really Responsible For The High Prices You Pay For Gasoline?

May 12, 2008 by

Investor’s Business Daily has a great piece on why gas is so high these days. I need to pass it to all of you.

*******

For the last 28 years, Democrats in Congress and a few Republicans have again and again opposed our drilling for oil in Alaska’s ANWR area when we knew it contained at least 10 billion barrels of oil we could be using now.

IBD Series: Breaking The Back Of High Oil

  • For the past 31 years, Congress repeatedly prevented us from building any new oil refineries that we now badly need.
  • More recently, congressional Democrats defeated and discouraged any bill that would let us drill in the deep sea 100 miles out. However, it’s somehow OK for China to drill there.
  • As a further indictment of our Congress, since the 1980s it has continually stopped all building of nuclear power plants while France, Germany and, yes, Japan, plus 12 other major nations, did build plants and now get 20% to 80% of their energy from their wise and safe nuclear plant investments.
  • From 1990 to 2000, U.S. crude oil demand rapidly accelerated by 7.41 quadrillion BTUs, according to Department of Energy data. And our rate of foreign oil dependency dramatically increased while our domestic oil production steadily declined.

Under the eight Clinton years alone, U.S. oil production declined 1,349,000 barrels per day, or 19%, while our foreign imports increased 3,574,000 barrels per day, or 45%.

During this time, President Clinton vetoed ANWR drilling bills that would have clearly made Alaska our No. 1 state in the production of our own vitally needed oil supply, not only for all Americans but also for national defense emergencies.

So were Democrats and members of Congress together merely short-sighted, with only a few having any real business experience?
Continue reading “Who Is Really Responsible For The High Prices You Pay For Gasoline?”

00Publius Contributor - Congress - Democrats/Leftists - Economy/Finances - Energy - GOP - News - Science - Society/Culture - Warner Todd Huston

Corn on the Cob, NOT Corn on the Car

May 9, 2008 by

-By Warner Todd Huston

So, here is the rub, you think you’re saving the planet and, therefore the human race, by proposing that we grow our gasoline in our corn crops instead of using those eeeevil fossil fuel, right? You say let’s make ethanol from our corn and all will be in balance? You feel really, really good about yourself — after all “feelings” are what counts, not results.

But, the next thing you know, they are starving in Haiti and rioting over the 40% rise in basic food costs because of you and your neato ethanol idea.

Now how do you feel? Are you saving people now?

Well Representatives Jeff Flake (R, Arizona James Sensenbrenner (R, Wisconsin) have introduced HR 5911, the Remove Incentives to Produce Ethanol Act of 2008 (RIPE Act) to curb this foolish over indulgence in ethanol production.

Flake laments the unintended consequences that the do-gooders in the envirowacko extreme caused with this absurd emphasis on ethanol production.

“This is a classic case of the law of unintended consequences. Congress surely did not intend to raise food prices by incentivizing ethanol, but that’s precisely what’s happened. A jump in food prices is the last thing our economy needs right now.”

And Sensenbrenner reminds us that all the supposed benefits of ethanol were never really proved out in reality.

“I have always been opposed to reformulated gasoline (RFG) because it doesn’t reduce the pollution it was supposed to, and in fact, increases other kinds of pollution,” said Sensenbrenner.

“Fuel mixed with ethanol is less efficient, and results in fewer miles per gallon for consumers,” Sensenbrenner continued. “Moreover, it’s extremely expensive, even in the Midwest, where although corn is abundant, the cost of converting it to ethanol, and the difficulties associated with transporting it, has made it more expensive than traditional gasoline. As a result, we are seeing dramatic price increases in corn, which is hitting families hard considering the prevalence of corn in food production and in animal feed.”

“The fact is, the ethanol industry has been subsidized for twenty-seven years and claims to still need the subsidies to survive,” Sensenbrenner added. “If an industry cannot survive without government support after twenty-seven years, there are more serious problems in place.”

With 25% of our corn crop suddenly going to ethanol production, the cost of foodstuff has seen a big inflation in costs, not just here in the US but all across the world. After all, if corn is to be subsidized by the government, farmers will gravitate to the crop that pays them the most. And since the US really does feed the world, less (corn) is not more (food) in this case.

Call your representative and tell them to support HR 5911.

Continue reading “Corn on the Cob, NOT Corn on the Car”

00Publius Contributor - Democrats/Leftists - Energy - Media Bias - News - Society/Culture - The Heritage Foundation

The Bear Truth (Polar, that is)

May 5, 2008 by 1 Comment

-By The Heritage Foundation

Environmentalists are in their normal state of righteous frenzy over the Department of Interior’s continued deliberations on whether or not to list the polar bear as “endangered” pursuant to the Endangered Species Act. Responding to a California judge’s decision ordering Interior to make their decision by May 15, Natural Resources Defense Council’s Andrew Wetzler said, “The science is absolutely unambiguous that the polar bear deserves protection.” The Center for Biological Diversity’s Kassie Siegel added: “The science is perfectly clear. There’s no dispute. The polar bear is an endangered species.” This rhetoric is 100% typical of the environmental movement. All scientists agree with us. There is no debate. Politicians need to conform to our agenda or we’ll all soon die. The problem in this case is that someone forgot to tell the Canadians.

An independent committee of scientists told the Canadian government last Friday that the polar bears are not, in fact, threatened or endangered. The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada did give the bears a “special concern” status, though, Canada’s weakest classification. Chairman Jeffrey Hutchings announced: “Based on the best available information at hand, there was insufficient reason to think that the polar bear was at imminent risk of extinction.” Hutchings went on to explain that the polar bears were facing threats from over-hunting and oil and gas development, but that the current modeling is not reliable enough to determine exactly what impact global warming is having on the bear.

Canadian scientists are not the only ones who do not believe the polar bears are becoming extinct. The native Inuit Indians, a society that has depended on the polar bears for its livelihood for generations, also is against listing the polar bear as endangered. The Inuit no longer trust scientists after researchers drastically underestimated bowhead whale populations in the Arctic. Jayko Alooloo told The Canadian Press: “We don’t believe the scientists’ information any more. (Hunters) will ignore new quotas.”
Continue reading “The Bear Truth (Polar, that is)”

00Publius Contributor - Business - Congress - Dan Scott - Democrats/Leftists - Economy/Finances - Energy - Media Bias - News - Science - Society/Culture

When the cure is worse than the disease

April 30, 2008 by 3 Comments

-By Dan Scott

In my last article I ended with mentioning that there will be increased Ethanol mandates on top of the absurdity of the failed government policy on electric generation. The current run up in food prices is devastating to the world’s poor. How else does one explain the food riots in Haiti, Egypt and Bangladesh? Are they so far away that it is easy for us to ignore, play ignorant or the part we played in it? We are looking at the beginning of a huge humanitarian crisis of epic proportions if ethanol mandates and subsidies are not immediately suspended.

Low global wheat stocks, coupled with the emergence of a virulent crop disease, are threatening the world’s food supply, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Edward Schafer told food aid groups Wednesday.

“We have never been less secure about the near-term future of wheat,” he said. “Here in the United States it is our most basic crop with a farm gate value of $16 billion (€10 billion). Global wheat stocks are at an unprecedented historic 30-year low, and U.S. wheat stocks are at unprecedented 60-year low.”
Continue reading “When the cure is worse than the disease”

00Publius Contributor - Dan Scott - Democrats/Leftists - Energy - Media Bias - News - Science - Society/Culture

AGW insanity has reached new heights of absurdity

April 26, 2008 by

-By Dan Scott

Recently, President Bush has seemly signed onto the AGW bandwagon by giving it legitimacy. While his approach in elevating nuclear power as the solution to this non problem is rational from the energy independence, national security, foreign policy and balance of trade perspectives, no AGW promoter will sign on to such a solution. Not Al Gore, not Nancy Pelosi, not Harry Reid. There is a reason why no nuclear power plant has been built in the US since the Three Mile Island incident, which by the way no one was killed. The idea of nuclear power generation is dead in the US, even if the NRC grants the permits to build the power plants, the environmental lobby supported by their allies in the Democrat Party will tie up such permits with ceaseless litigation as they tried with the border fence. Department of Homeland Security played it’s trump card of the national security waiver to stop the environmental excuses. The result will be a minimum of 10 years (2018) before the first power plant comes on line if the power companies have deep enough pockets to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in litigation costs.

Given the recent actions of State Power Commissions blocking numerous coal fired electric plants, the country will be faced with the harsh reality of soaring electric rates and soaring natural gas prices. Why soaring natural gas prices? The only alternative to nuclear and coal is the natural gas. Electrical power generation by natural gas is in direct competition with residential use for cooking, laundry and heating (space & water) in addition to general industry. The competition for this limited resource will spark price hikes just as in the 1970s since we are importing natural gas. This one – two punch on the consumer will condemn the economy to anemic growth rates indefinitely. The cost of electricity under this scenario will go up 5 fold by 2025. Take your current electric bill and multiply by 5, can you afford AGW?
Continue reading “AGW insanity has reached new heights of absurdity”

00Publius Contributor - Dan Scott - Democrats/Leftists - Economy/Finances - Energy - News - Science - Security/Safety - Society/Culture

AGW insanity has reached new heights of absurdity

April 24, 2008 by 6 Comments

-By Dan Scott

Recently, President Bush has seemly signed onto the AGW bandwagon by giving it legitimacy. While his approach in elevating nuclear power as the solution to this non problem is rational from the energy independence, national security, foreign policy and balance of trade perspectives, no AGW promoter will sign on to such a solution. Not Al Gore, not Nancy Pelosi, not Harry Reid. There is a reason why no nuclear power plant has been built in the US since the Three Mile Island incident, which by the way no one was killed. The idea of nuclear power generation is dead in the US, even if the NRC grants the permits to build the power plants, the environmental lobby supported by their allies in the Democrat Party will tie up such permits with ceaseless litigation as they tried with the border fence. Department of Homeland Security played its trump card of the national security waiver to stop the environmental excuses. The result will be a minimum of 10 years (2018) before the first power plant comes on line if the power companies have deep enough pockets to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in litigation costs.

Given the recent actions of State Power Commissions blocking numerous coal fired electric plants, the country will be faced with the harsh reality of soaring electric rates and soaring natural gas prices. Why soaring natural gas prices? The only alternative to nuclear and coal is the natural gas. Electrical power generation by natural gas is in direct competition with residential use for cooking, laundry and heating (space & water) in addition to general industry. The competition for this limited resource will spark price hikes just as in the 1970s since we are importing natural gas. This one – two punch on the consumer will condemn the economy to anemic growth rates indefinitely. The cost of electricity under this scenario will go up 5 fold by 2025. Take your current electric bill and multiply by 5, can you afford AGW?
Continue reading “AGW insanity has reached new heights of absurdity”

00Publius Contributor - Democrats/Leftists - Energy - Media Bias - News - Society/Culture - Uncategorized - Warner Todd Huston

Don’t You Hate it When SUVs Kill People? The AP Sure Does

November 24, 2007 by 1 Comment

-By Warner Todd Huston

Here is the kind of lapse in logic that drives me crazy (no pun intended). The AP today has a story headline that just makes me cringe: “SUV plunges into canal, killing 7 people inside.” Now here is the problem, HOW did an SUV go about killing these poor people? Did it unpark itself, drive across town, slam open its doors and gobble up some folks waiting at a bus stop and then drive them into a canal? Should we be wary of every SUV on the street for fear that it may kidnap us only to drive us off cliffs or into canals? Or is it more likely, AP, that a driver was responsible for killing the passengers INSIDE the SUV? Isn’t it a tad more likely that the SUV did not kill anyone, but that the actions of the human at its wheel was the culprit?

Here is the entire AP report as it appears on MSNBC:

SUV plunges into canal, killing 7 people inside

Four children, baby among dead in Central California; 2 passengers survive

KETTLEMAN CITY, Calif. – A sport utility vehicle ran off a Central California road and landed upside down in a canal, killing seven people inside, including four children and a baby, authorities said Sunday.

The SUV was going more than 55 mph Saturday night near Kettleman City, about 50 miles south of Fresno, when the driver, Sergia Olvera, 31, lost control, said Officer Joseph Miller of the California Highway Patrol.

The vehicle ran up a dirt embankment, rolled and landed upside down in the canal with 5 feet of water, Miller said.

“There were no child seats in the vehicle, and there was no evidence that any seat belts were used,” Miller said.

Survivor Dalia Olvera, 23, had moderate injuries, and 10-year-old Esmerelda Pompa was not injured, Miller said.

All of the victims were from Earlimart, about 50 miles from the site of the accident.

One wonders if the AP has a good hate on against SUVs with this sort of silly headline? But, whatever the case, it is an illogical way to write a story. However, it fits with their other often employed phraseology when talking about “gun violence,” doesn’t it? Where it seems that guns themselves are to blame for the killing instead of the hands holding it?

Anyway, it is just another example of the lapse in logic so often seen among the denizens of the MSM.

But, one thing I have to say. I will look askance at every SUV I pass from now on. I’d hate to be driven into a canal to my death!

Bad SUV…. BAD, BAD SUV!

Continue reading “Don’t You Hate it When SUVs Kill People? The AP Sure Does”

00Publius Contributor - Democrats/Leftists - Economy/Finances - Energy - Media Bias - News - Society/Culture - Taxes - Uncategorized - Warner Todd Huston

Want a New Gas Tax? Call it a ‘Fee’ to Fool Voters

November 8, 2007 by

-By Warner Todd Huston

The Contra Costa Times has given us an interesting new angle to fool the voters into voting for a new gasoline tax in an article titled, “Calling gas tax a ‘fee’ may help at ballot.” In an opinion laced article, the CCTimes is advising politicians to call the tax hike a “fee” instead of a tax to fool the voters into accepting it at the ballot box. Throughout this piece is the obvious assumption by staff writer Erik N. Nelson that the county governments in and around San Francisco are “cash-starved” and that these taxes… oops, I mean fees… are needed because it is important that the governments “look for new funding” for roads and to “curb global warming.” Not a hint that these governments have wasted the money they are already confiscating from the citizens, nor any investigation why some of the highest taxes in the country have not been able to satisfy the needs there. No, instead of an investigation into government mismanagement and waste, the CCTimes and writer Nelson are trying to find sneakier ways to steal the taxpayer’s income by “semantics” and wordplay.

The CCTimes first bemoans that the idea died last time a new gas tax was floated.

In a proposal that fell on deaf ears in Sacramento last year, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s staff is recommending legislation that would make a gas tax a “fee,” and thus make it easier to prevail at the ballot box.

Gosh, imagine that? The people don’t want more taxes in one of the highest taxed areas in the country, even if the name of the thing is changed! Can you be any more surprised?

But, the CCTimes reports there is a great new idea to come to the rescue: not only call it a “fee” instead of a tax, but claim it is also to help “fight global warming.”
Continue reading “Want a New Gas Tax? Call it a ‘Fee’ to Fool Voters”

00Publius Contributor - Business - Congress - Democrats/Leftists - Energy - IER - News - Security/Safety - Society/Culture - Technology - Uncategorized

Ethanol Conspiracy Theories Ignore Fuel’s Legitimate Shortcomings

October 26, 2007 by

IER Press Release

“Cellulosic ethanol is akin to the tooth fairy; it’s an entity that many believe in, but no one ever actually sees.”–“The Senate’s Ethanol Delusion,” by Robert Bryce, Energy Tribune

Washington, DC—Yesterday, Renewable Fuels Association President Bob Dineen issued a statement urging Congress to pump billions of subsidies into ethanol. Dineen’s rhetoric begs lawmakers to create an artificial market for ethanol, build the extra infrastructure needed for transport, and condemns anyone who speaks about its shortcomings as part of a “coordinated offensive of mistruths”. These statements undermine the effort to have a serious debate about the right way to diversify our energy sources and increase America’s energy security. The ethanol industry has been getting super-sized subsidies for more than two decades. Throughout that time, cellulosic ethanol has always been “right around the corner.” We should be looking to innovators and entrepreneurs to develop the next great technological breakthroughs in energy—not to lobbyists seeking more handouts in Washington.

Despite Dineen’s accusation of an “insidious campaign” by the fossil fuels industry against biofuels, there are a myriad of legitimate concerns about ethanol. Those concerns include, but are not limited to, ethanol’s effect on food prices, its huge water demands, and its overall financial cost. (For more on this see the recent Wall Street Journal editorial, “Ethanol’s Water Shortage”)

Continue reading “Ethanol Conspiracy Theories Ignore Fuel’s Legitimate Shortcomings”

00Publius Contributor - Democrats/Leftists - Energy - IER - Science - Security/Safety - Society/Culture - Technology - Uncategorized

Closed-door Energy Taxes Will Harm US Competitiveness

October 18, 2007 by

IER Press Release

Pelosi rushes backdoor bill, neglects pro-growth solutions in favor of failed policies

WASHINGTON- Today, The Institute for Energy Research (IER) cautioned that Congress’ proposed $15 billion tax hike on the U.S. oil industry will raise consumer prices and put domestic companies at a competitive disadvantage. At the same time, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is avoiding public scrutiny by refusing to review the bill in a bipartisan conference committee, rather than allowing open debate of the details of this misguided energy policy. This closed-door approach to reconciling the energy bill only underscores its shortcomings: less energy and higher prices.

Yesterday, a panel of experts from energy policy and economics organizations discussed the harmful effects of this proposed legislation. Robert Murphy, economist for the Institute for Energy Research (IER); Ben Lieberman, senior policy analyst with the Heritage Foundation; and Margo Thorning, senior vice president and chief economist with the American Council for Capital Formation explained possible unintended consequences for consumers and businesses of higher taxes on the oil and gas industry. For example, the Windfall Profits Tax of the 1980s resulted in lower domestic oil production, higher oil imports, and a depressed U.S. oil industry with reduced profits that limited the development of technologies for obtaining oil in deeper off shore and on shore wells.

“This proposed tax hike would generate only $15 billion, whereas opening exploration in the Alaskan National Wildlife Reserve [ANWR] would generate $75 billion in revenue,” Lieberman explained. This type of pro-growth strategy, he added, would preserve American goals of increased supply and energy security, whereas taxes undermine them. Lieberman characterized the current proposal as “raising taxes on energies that work in order to subsidize energy sources that don’t work,” referring to the economic inefficiency of biofuel and wind energy.
Continue reading “Closed-door Energy Taxes Will Harm US Competitiveness”