Green Technology Means Higher Unemployment

There is a sense of frustration in America today; our government is taking concrete steps to drive up unemployment while millions of Americans are looking for work. People are fed up with the status quo and they want to get this economy moving again. Unfortunately however, the federal government is using green technology as a means to drive up unemployment and to prolong the recession. This claim may seem strange as it stands in contrast to the often presented picture that green technology will help solve our current economic woes; but in reality green technology is making the situation worse.

To help sort fact from fiction CARE is pleased to present Dennis T. Avery, a regular contributor and Senior Fellow with the Hudson Institute. As an environmental economist he builds the case that government-mandated green technology such as the "smart grid" is driving up unemployment in America just as government-imposed renewable energy is driving up unemployment in Spain. He also points out that federal mandates are benefiting Chinese manufactures as America imports wind turbines from the far-east. All the while our federal government is failing to help advance proven energy sources such as fossil fuels and until this changes, more American workers will be left filing for unemployment benefits...

Losing Jobs With Green Technology
President Obama has allocated $4 billion in "stimulus funds" to help advance the "smart grid," which is intended to seamlessly integrate all our new solar and wind power into the national supply of electricity. Much of the $4 billion will be spent to install 20 million new digital "smart meters." These meters will instantly tell the power company how to deploy its varied generating sources most effectively.

The "stimulus fund" goal is to create new "green" jobs. The Washington Post estimates that deploying the 20 million smart meters will create jobs for about 1,600 installers, and keep them employed for about five years. The manufacturing process for the meters will be highly automated, so only a few hundred jobs would be involved there. Still, 2,000 green jobs for five years, paid for by stimulus funds, must be good. Or is it?

Let’s think this through. The smart meters report automatically to the power company. We’ll lose 28,000 existing, permanent jobs for meter-readers. The Washington Post says all our "green" energy efforts are likely to produce only tens of thousands of jobs, not the millions of jobs needed to keep America at full employment.

A good Spanish study, led by Dr. Gabriel Calzada of Juan Carlos University in Madrid, found that every renewable-energy job created by the Spanish government has destroyed 2.2 other energy-related jobs. Worse, every megawatt of expensive "green energy" has destroyed 5.39 jobs in non-energy sectors as products became too expensive for consumers to buy—or as manufacturing shifted to countries without energy taxes. President Obama has held Spain up as a country for us to emulate, which only emphasizes that Calzada’s study is likely an Obama-valid blueprint for our own energy future.

Note, by the way, that China has already become the world’s major source of wind turbines, cutting further into Obama’s "green job" expectations. The wind turbine manufacturing will shortly be joined by our steel and aluminum industries, fertilizer plants and many other production facilities when the U.S. energy penalty taxes mount up.

Unfortunately, the $4 billion doesn’t replace our massive existing investments in coal-fired and gas-fired power plants, in gasoline refineries and service stations, in natural gas pipelines and drilling rigs. In reality, the renewables will subtract from our standard of living.

In 2007, U.S. subsidies to coal-fired electricity were 44 cents per megawatt hour, compared with $23.37 in subsidies for wind turbine megawatts, and $24.34 in subsidies per solar megawatt. That’s a fair measure of the added cost for renewables, except that wind and solar megawatts must also be billed for the additional costs of the fossil fueled plants that must be built and kept in "spinning reserve" in case the wind drops or clouds cover the sun. Denmark, a world leader in wind, has not decommissioned any fossil-power generators because of its "spinning reserve" requirement.

As Obama’s energy taxes force reductions in coal and oil production, the price of U.S. energy will double and triple—and so will the costs of the things we buy. Clearly, if the President wasn’t afraid of man-made global warming, we would not have spent the $4 billion on the "smart grid" at this moment of recession. Nor would we be planning massive and ineffective wind farms.
We might, instead, be designing new coal-fired power plants with the Department of Energy’s latest discoveries in clean-burn technology.

DENNIS T. AVERY is a senior fellow for the Hudson Institute in Washington, DC. He is an environmental economist and was formerly a senior analyst for the Department of State. He is co-author, with S. Fred Singer, of Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Hundred Years, Readers may write him at PO Box 202, Churchville, VA 24421 or email to cgfi@hughes.net

Source: Gabriel Calzada; "Study of the Effects on Employment of Public Aid to Renewable Energy Sources," Juan Carlos University, Madrid; March, 2009.

Hypocrisy of the "Green Movement"

Do you remember all the noise that was being made over ethanol by environmentalists during the Bush administration? Many individuals pointed out the limitations of ethanol but these voices were ignored because the greens were on board. Now environmentalists have flip-flopped on ethanol because they initially glossed over its limitations. This pattern is a familiar one and our CARE blog contributor Dennis T. Avery (Director of the Center for Global Food Issues at the Hudson Institute) points out the hypocrisy of the "green movement" by realistically assessing several energy sources.

For example, clearing and plowing the massive amount of acerage necessary for using cellulosic ethanol releases huge amounts of CO2 into the air-one of the greenhouse gases that is allegedly causing global warming. Yet despite this grave concern over global warming, environmentalists in concert with the Obama administration have stopped spent nuclear fuel from being stored in Nevada. That's right! The environmentalists oppose opening the disposal site necessary to continue using nuclear power, the only CO2-free base load energy source Americans have access to. Of course, these hypocritical environmentalists pay no heed to the facts as does Mr. Avery. We invite you to read on as we are confident that decision making based upon facts rather than eco-ideology will change your views on energy for the better.

Greens Again Bait And Switch On Energy
Back during the bad old Bush presidency, the eco-movement loudly endorsed ethanol, particularly cellulosic ethanol, as a good eco-substitute for gasoline. Now they’ve changed their minds. They’re finally admitting that you can’t grow ethanol and food on the same acres. If you’re going to add ethanol to your shopping list, you need to clear more land to grow the feedstock. When forest or grassland is cleared and plowed, huge amounts of carbon stored in the soil gas off into the air. If Global Warming is man-made, this is a serious problem.

This gem of newfound wisdom has just been published in the October 23 issue of Science, and dutifully repeated by the Washington Post and the other Green media collaborators. The lead author is Princeton’s Tim Searchinger, formerly a lawyer for the Environmental Defense Fund.

Where were these "environmentalists" when Bush and the Congress installed their ill-considered mandates for corn and cellulosic ethanol? Three full years ago, I did a study with the Competitive Enterprise Institute titled Biofuels, Food or Wildlife: The Massive Land Costs of U.S. Ethanol. I warned back then that making any useful amount of ethanol would force us to plow millions more acres of wildlands—first for corn and then for poplar, pine, and other fast-growing trees to make wood chips for cellulosic ethanol.

I warned there wasn’t enough land to go around. Nobody cared; because the Greens approved it. But the Greens are playing bait-n-switch. First it was solar, but the sun only shines for half of each 24 hours. Clouds interrupt too. How can we keep the lights on at the school and the hospital?

Then it was wind turbines. But a big EU power provider has testified that wind is so erratic you need 90 percent of your installed wind capacity matched in "spinning reserve"—burning fuel—from fossil or nuclear. Why bother to make the wind turbines at all?

Corn ethanol nearly doubled world food prices in three years, and is set to do it again whenever there’s a short corn crop. Cellulosic ethanol is still unworkable and the environmentalists are now telling us not to bother.

They don’t want us to have energy! Paul Ehrlich and Maurice Strong—the Canadian "grey eminence" of the UN—agree that the threat to the earth is "too many rich people." And energy is the key to the affluence. So we must tax away the energy.

What about more nuclear plants that don’t emit CO2? The Obama administration won’t allow spent nuclear fuel to be stored at Harry Reid’s Yucca Mountain, and it won’t permit reprocessing. Strike it off the list!

Now we learn that the energy-tax bills currently in the Congress contain a little clause that lets the White House renege on all those emission permits the big companies have sold their souls for—if CO2 levels go too high. That’s not temperatures too high, but CO2 levels in the atmosphere too high. So what if CO2 has almost no linkage to our temperatures? As the oceans recover from their Little Ice Age chill, the laws of physics guarantee higher and higher CO2 concentrations in the air. Talk about legislative sleight-of-hand!

Again I will warn the Green movement: If children are starving for lack of nitrogen fertilizer for the crops (made with natural gas); if elderly voters are literally freezing to death in their homes for lack of coal; those laws won’t be worth the paper they were drafted on (considerable as the paper piles already are).

In fact, the Congress itself will race to change the laws before you can say "tea party."

DENNIS T. AVERY is an environmental economist, and a senior fellow for the Hudson Institute in Washington, DC. He was formerly a senior analyst for the Department of State. He is co-author, with S. Fred Singer, of Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Hundred Years, Readers may write him at PO Box 202, Churchville, VA 24421 or email to cgfi@hughes.net.

How many Americans Will Follow Obama’s Leadership On Climate Change?

We here at CARE noticed (perhaps you did too) that President Obama repeatedly states, “Few challenges facing America—and the world—are more urgent than combating climate change,” and that “We will make it clear that America is ready to lead."

Building upon the work of CARE Blog contributor Paul Driessen, we’ve decided to raise some questions: How many Americans will support a 1400-page energy and climate bill that will create a trillion-dollar cap-trade-and-tax industry? How many Americans will follow the leadership of a man who is working hard to ensure that energy and food costs “necessarily skyrocket,” killing jobs, and imposing an all-intrusive Green Nanny State? How many Americans are willing to point an economic gun to the heads of their neighbors and to pull the trigger during this economic downturn?

These questions have serious implications and we encourage our readers to delve further into the issue with our friend Paul Driessen.

Leader of None
"Few challenges facing America--and the world--are more urgent than combating climate change," President Obama has asserted. "We will make it clear that America is ready to lead."

The President and Al Gore are certainly ready to lead. But how many will follow?

Even in America, and certainly on the world stage, the two increasingly look like Don Quixote and his faithful squire, Sancho Panza. As they tilt for windmills, and against a "monstrous giant of infamous repute"--climate disasters conjured up by computer models and Hollywood special effects masters--their erstwhile followers are making politically correct noises, but running for the hills.

The House of Representatives passed a 1400-page energy and climate bill - by a razor-thin margin, and only after Nancy Pelosi and Henry Waxman packed it with enough last-minute deals to protect favored congressional districts, buy votes, and curry favor with assorted special interests. Not one legislator actually read the bill--which would create a trillion-dollar cap-trade-and-tax industry, ensure that energy and food costs "necessarily skyrocket," kill jobs, and impose an all-intrusive Green Nanny State.

Republicans want to control what people do in their bedrooms, insists the old canard. Democrats, it appears, want to dictate what we do everywhere outside of our bedrooms. And Sancho Gore wants to become the world's first global warming billionaire, by selling climate indulgences, aka carbon offsets.

The reaction has been predictable--by anyone except House and White House czars and czarinas.

Citizens are livid over yet another attempt to use a purported crisis to justify further expanding the government and spending billions more tax dollars for alarmist research, activism and propaganda, just ahead of the Copenhagen climate conference. Global warming continues to rank dead-last in Pew Research and other polls that actually list it as an issue. Rasmussen puts the President's approval ratings at 46% and falling. Zogby reports that 57% of Americans oppose cap-and-trade bills.

Manufacturing states, which get 60-98% of their electricity from coal, worry that the only thing they'll export in ten years will be jobs. Democrat senators from those states worry that the energy and climate issue will be "toxic for them during midterm elections," says Politico magazine.

Even companies that had eagerly sought seats at the negotiating table are now gagging. ConocoPhillips, Caterpillar and others finally realize that cap-and-tax will severely penalize them and their customers.

Not even the climate is cooperating. Outside of Dallas, 2009 has brought some of coldest summer days on record across the US. Near freezing temperatures nipped at crops, and gas heaters were sine qua non at an August 29 outdoor wedding in Wisconsin. The Farmers Almanac predicts a brutal 2009-2010 winter.

In Europe, every longitude has a platitude about saving the planet. But EU countries that agreed to slash greenhouse gas emissions below 1990 levels are well above their Kyoto Protocol targets - Austria by 30% and Spain by 37% as of 2008. And despite new commitments to cut emissions 40 years from now, you don't need tarot cards or entrails to predict the more probable EU emissions future.

Germany plans to build 27 coal-fired electrical generating plants by 2020. Italy plans to double its reliance on coal in just five years. Europe as a whole will have 40 new coal-fired power plants by 2015, columnist Alan Caruba reports. The Polish Academy of Sciences has publicly challenged manmade global warming disaster hypotheses. And only 11% of Czech citizens believe rising carbon dioxide emissions caused global temperatures to climb 1975-1998--and also caused them to rise 1915-1940, fall 1940-1975, then stabilize and decline again 1998-2009.
Australia just voted down punitive global warming legislation. New Zealand has put its emissions-bashing program in a deep freeze.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev's top economic aid bluntly dismissed any talk of following President Obama's quixotic lead. "We won't sacrifice economic growth for the sake of emission reduction," he told reporters at the July 2009 G8 meeting.

Chinese and Indian leaders are equally adamant. China is playing a smart hand in this high-stakes climate poker game, drawing up plans to combat global warming sometime in the future, and gradually improve its energy efficiency and pollution control. However, it is building a new coal-fired power plant every week and putting millions of new cars on its growing network of highways.

So is India, which will double its coal-based electricity generation and produce millions of Tata and other affordable cars by 2020. "India will not accept any binding emission-reduction target, period," Indian Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh has stated. "This is a non-negotiable stand."

India and China have a "complete convergence" of views on these matters, Ramesh added. No wonder: 400 million Indians still do not have electricity; 500 million Chinese still do not.

No electricity means no refrigeration, to keep food and medicines from spoiling. It means no water purification, to reduce baby-killing intestinal diseases. No modern heating and air conditioning, to reduce hypothermia in winter, heat stroke in summer, and lung disease year-round. It means no lights or computers, no modern offices, factories, schools, shops, clinics or hospitals.

Fossil fuels are "gradually eliminating poverty in the Third world," observes UCLA economist Deepak Lal. Any call to curb carbon emissions would "condemn billions to continued poverty. While numerous Western do-gooders shed crocodile tears about the Third World's poor, they are willing to prevent them from taking the only feasible current route out from this abject state" - oil, gas, coal, nuclear and hydroelectric energy development. The situation is intolerable, unsustainable, lethal and immoral.

The only way India and China would agree to cut their emissions is if the United States cut its emissions 40% by 2020, says Ramesh - back to 1959 levels and pre-JFK living standards, when the US population was 179 million (versus 306 million today). No way will that happen. So Asian energy and economic development will continue apace. And rightly so, to foster human rights and environmental justice.

All is not bleak, however, for Canute Obama's impossible dream of controlling global temperatures.

British politicians remain committed to slashing CO2 emissions and replacing hydrocarbons with wind power. Unfortunately, the biggest UK wind projects have been abandoned or put on indefinite hold--and a growing demand/supply imbalance portends still higher energy prices, widespread power cuts, rolling blackouts and energy rationing, the Daily Telegraph reported on August 31. Brits may soon trade their stiff upper lips for contentious town hall meetings and ballot-box revolution.

The Democratic Party of Japan's landslide victory in the August 30 election will likely create a new coalition government tilted strongly to the left. The DJP has pledged to cut carbon dioxide gas emissions 25% below 1990 levels by 2020 - though this will likely strangle economic growth and job creation, especially if one coalition partner's opposition to nuclear power becomes DJP policy.

Then there is Africa, where leaders appear ready to support curbs on energy use--in exchange for up to $300 billion per year in additional foreign aid, "to cushion the impact of global warming." That will be nice for their private bank accounts, but less so for Africa's 750 million people who still don't have electricity. Those people will simply be sacrificed, to prevent natural or fictitious climate disasters.

Of course, the real goal was never to control the climate. It was always to control energy use, lives, jobs, economies, transportation and housing--and usher in a new era of high tax global governance. The American people are increasingly saying they're not ready to grant that power to Obama Gore & Company.


Paul Driessen is author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power ∙ Black death (http://www.eco-imperialism.com/) and senior policy advisor for the Congress of Racial Equality and Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, whose new book (Freezing in the Dark) reveals how environmental pressure groups raise money and promote policies that restrict energy development and hurt poor families.

Back to the “Good Old Days”

Many activists, bureaucrats, politicians and even some corporate executives present arbitrary CO2 reduction targets and timetables casually and with great fanfare--as though achieving them were simple, desirable and necessary.

In reality, reducing America’s carbon dioxide levels to 80% below 1990 levels would return the United States to emission levels last seen in 1905 … and that’s before accounting for changes in population and energy-based technology. The impact on our nation’s economy, employment, manufacturing, living standards and health would be profoundly negative.

And yet, there has been virtually no mention of this in Capitol Hill hearings or public policy discussions.

Here, regular contributor Paul Driessen seeks to bring these facts to light while presenting a fresh perspectives on cap-and-tax proposals, CO2 reductions, and wind energy “substitutes” for the hydrocarbons that make our modern lives possible.

US Energy And Climate Plans Would Drag Us Back To 1905--Or 1862
Think back to 1905.

The Wright brothers had just made history. Coal and wood heated homes. Few had telephones or electricity. AC units were handheld fans. Ice blocks cooled ice boxes. New York City collected 900,000 tons of vehicle emissions--horse manure--annually, and dumped it into local rivers. Lung and intestinal diseases were rampant. Life expectancy was 47.

Today, President Obama wants to prevent “runaway global warming,” by slashing US carbon dioxide emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. According to Oak Ridge National Laboratory data, this reduction would return the United States to emission levels last seen in those halcyon days of 1905!

But America’s 1905 population was 84 million, versus 308 million today. We didn’t drive or fly, or generate electricity for offices, factories, schools or hospitals. To account for those differences, we’d have to send CO2 emissions back to 1862 levels.

The Civil War was raging. Nine of ten Americans were farmers (versus 2% today). The industrial revolution was in its infancy. Malaria halted construction on the Washington, DC aqueduct. Typhus and cholera killed thousands more every year. Life expectancy was 40--half of what affordable hydrocarbon, hydroelectric and nuclear power helped make it today.

None of this seems to matter to the Obama Administration or liberal Democrats. The 648-page Waxman-Markey climate bill would compel an 80% CO2 reduction, by imposing punitive cap-and-tax restrictions on virtually every hydrocarbon-using business, motorist and family.
That’s making some legislators nervous, as they ponder the health, economic and employment effects of restricting energy supplies and driving up the cost of everything we eat, drink, make and do--especially in 20 states that get 60-98% of their electricity from coal.

So to prod Congress into action, or achieve the 80% target via regulatory edict, the Obama Environmental Protection Agency has decreed that natural, plant-enhancing, life-sustaining carbon dioxide “endangers human health and welfare.” The authoritarian actions it is contemplating would regulate cars, trains, boats and planes; pave the way for regulating farms and factories, hospitals, schools, malls and apartment buildings, computer servers and lawn mowers; and send energy prices skyrocketing.

It is astonishing how casually activists, bureaucrats, politicians and even some corporate executives advocate arbitrary CO2 reduction targets and timetables--as though they were possible, desirable or necessary.

The targets reflect worst-case scenarios generated by computer models. But the models assume human CO2 now drives climate changes that have been occurring for eons. They ignore many natural forces, and inadequately analyze incomplete data, based on our still limited grasp of complex climate processes.

They cannot accurately replicate last year’s regional climate shifts or predict changes even one year in the future. They ignore Earth’s history of repeated climate changes, and failed to anticipate the slowly declining global temperatures of 1995-2008.

Thousands of climate and other scientists say there is no climate crisis, and CO2 plays little or no substantive role in climate change. A new Rasmussen poll finds that 48% of registered American voters now believe climate change is caused by planetary and other natural forces. Only a third still believe it’s due mostly to humans.

Climate realists also recognize that, even if America eliminated all of its greenhouse gas emissions, increasing Chinese and Indian carbon dioxide emissions would promptly offset our draconian cuts.

This alarms Climate Armageddonites. They fear it’s now or never to wrest control over energy and the economic, manufacturing and transportation activities it fuels. Now or never to profit from cap-and-tax laws, renewable energy mandates, and a forced shift away from hydrocarbons that now provide 85% of US energy.

“Socially responsible” corporate groups like the Carbon Offset Providers Coalition are banking on passage of Waxman-Markey or similar legislation. They want to ensure that any CO2 regime is “rigorous and efficient,” to foster high carbon prices, maximum subsidies and strong profits.
President Obama says cap-and-trade will “raise” $656 billion over the next decade. The National Economic Council and other analysts put the tax bite at $1.3 to $3.0 trillion.
This is not monetary manna. The wealth will be extracted from every hydrocarbon-using business, motorist and family.

The intrusive energy rules and taxes will clobber households, manufacturers, farmers, truckers and airlines. The poorest families will get energy welfare, to offset part of their $500-3,000 increase in annual heating, cooling, transportation and food expenses. Everyone else will have to trim health, vacation, charity, college and retirement budgets to pay for energy.

Every increase in energy prices will result in more businesses laying off workers or closing their doors, more jobs sent overseas, more families forced into welfare, more school districts, hospitals and churches into whirlpools of red ink.

Exactly how will they, your family, your business eliminate 80% of CO2 emissions by 2050? Exactly how will you pay those skyrocketing fuel bills?

The Nature Conservancy predicts that, by 2030, “eco-friendly” wind, solar and biofuel projects will require extra land equivalent to Minnesota, to produce the energy we now get from oil, gas and coal. Interior Secretary Salazar’s proposal to have offshore wind turbines replace gas, coal and nuclear electricity generators would mean 336,000 3.25MW behemoths off our coasts--if they operate 24/7/365. Far more if they don’t.

Where exactly will we site those turbines--and get the billions of tons of concrete, steel, copper and fiberglass it will take to build and install the expensive, unreliable, subsidized monsters?
My grandmother used to say, The only good thing about the “good old days” is that they’re gone.
Few Americans will be enthralled by the prospect of returning to that era. Fewer will relish the hefty price tag--and damage to their freedoms, budgets, jobs and living standards.

The White House, EPA and Congress need a serious reality check.

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (http://www.cfact.org/) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – black death.

Obama and Energy: A Cure Worse than the Disease

Think about the strong men you've seen. Those whose body is the envy of all other men--not that they'd admit it. What do they eat? Real food in a balanced diet that includes veggies, carbs and protein.

America is like that--or it has been. We've been the strong man. The envy of other countries with men, women and children sneaking into America to enjoy what we have here.

As the bumper stickers we have available through CARE advertise: Energy Makes America Great. What separates America--and the rest of the civilized world--from the third world countries is not that we are better or smarter than those in other countries, but we have the energy to allow us to excel. We have electricity and liquid fuels--in abundance. Or at least we did.

However, there are forces at work who want to make America not only “vegetarian,” but “vegan” when it comes to energy. These forces want us to live on greens only. Salad is nice--but not when it is all you eat! We’d no longer be the “strong man.” We’d be susceptible to attack from terrorist factions. On a balanced diet, we are strong, we can fight off those who wish to annihilate us.

This posting is from frequent contributor Paul Driessen. Here he looks at the energy plans of the new administration and how they will impact America. Read on!

Economic Bloodletting--Some proposed energy and environmental policies are akin to eighteenth century medicine
Doctors once prescribed bloodletting to eliminate impurities that they believed caused disease. When George Washington was stricken with malaria and a throat infection in December 1799, his physicians bled a quart of blood from his weakened body, and administered laxatives and emetics.

A few hours later, Washington died – from a cure far worse than the disease.

Today, our nation is in a recession. Millions are unemployed. The financial meltdown has hammered incomes, consumer spending, savings, profits, tax revenues, charity, remittances and foreign aid in America and across the globe.

Congress and the White House have responded with promises to spend $1 trillion or more, to bail out banks, homeowners, taxpayers, auto makers and other beleaguered groups; fix roads and bridges; and weatherize buildings, develop renewable energy and create “green jobs.”

The economic situation is so dire, they say, that we can’t worry about deficits. The “patient” needs a large “blood infusion” stimulus to “get the economy moving.”

But many worry that the proposed infusion is artificial blood: government loans, grants, mandates and debts. Reduced taxes and regulations would stimulate far more private sector initiatives and jobs, argue many economists; but those curatives enjoy limited support among current political leaders.

Worse, there is a real danger that the stimulus actions will be followed by the economic equivalent of medical practices that killed our first president.

Precluding access to oil, gas, coal and uranium would deprive America of fuels that produce 93% of the energy that makes jobs, living standards, food, health and transportation possible. It would force us to continue spending our children’s inheritance on imported energy – and forego trillions of dollars in leasing, royalty and tax revenues that could help pay for stimulus, defense, renewable energy and other programs.

Some want even more extreme bloodletting administered in the name of global warming. President-Elect Obama wants to slash carbon dioxide “impurities” by 80% by 2050, via cap-and-trade programs. He says any company trying to build a coal-fired generating plant will be “bankrupted” by greenhouse gas fees.

If Congress fails to act expeditiously on cap-and-trade, the Obama Administration could unleash the Environmental Protection Agency’s newly proposed rules – and regulate virtually our entire economy under the Clean Air Act. Those rules would immediately impose even more draconian restrictions on carbon dioxide and methane released from almost every office and apartment building, power plant, factory, farm, hospital, school, car maker and dealership, train and airline in the nation.

However, that would severely impact two dozen mostly Southern and Midwestern states which use coal to generate 47-98% of their electricity – and ensure lower utility and manufacturing costs, more jobs and better living standards. Moreover, modern coal-fired power plants emit 95% less pollution than 1970s-era plants, per unit of energy produced.

Restrict hydrocarbon use, and millions will lose their jobs. Mortality rates will rise, if people cannot afford proper heating, air-conditioning, nutrition and medical care. In minority areas, restricted hydrocarbon use would hobble economic opportunities and civil rights.

A cap-and-trade bill like Warner-Lieberman would cost 3 million U.S. manufacturing jobs and $7 trillion in lost GDP, by taxing hydrocarbon energy, the Heritage Center for Data Analysis calculates. The EPA regulatory regime would be even more onerous and costly.

Either action would drain the energy lifeblood from our economy, prolong the recession and kill jobs, for little environmental gain.

Renewable-energy economic superpowers are as rare as body-building vegans. America needs a balanced energy diet, to ensure security and prosperity: raw “green” energy vegetables like wind and solar, proteins and carbohydrates from hydrocarbons and nuclear, and a full allotment of iron-rich energy lifeblood.

Some say we are heading for climate disaster. But thousands of scientists vigorously disagree. A US Senate Minority Report features 650 climate experts (including many current and former UN-IPCC scientists) who say there is no evidence to support climate cataclysm hypotheses.

Computer models are not evidence, they stress – and not one has accurately predicted climate conditions even one year into the future, much less fifty. Actual, measured temperature, hurricane, flood, drought and sea level changes are completely within the realm of observed variability over the centuries.

Satellite measurements show that planetary warming stopped in 1998, even as global CO2 levels continue to rise. Even eliminating US greenhouse gases would reduce 2050 global temperatures by only 0.2 degrees F, assuming CO2 controls our Earth’s constantly changing climate.

China and India are building new coal-fired power plants every week – and their expanding greenhouse gas emissions now dwarf even economy-killing reductions under cap-and-trade or EPA. Europe’s emissions are well above 1990 levels and even further above promised reductions under Kyoto. Yet, the Poznan agreement delays and dilutes EU pledges even more, to avoid jeopardizing jobs in a hydrocarbon-dependent Europe.

Politicians violate their oath of office when they impose policies based on climate disaster scenarios, despite real-world evidence to the contrary – and regardless of the grievous harm that their “cures” would exact on poor, elderly, minority and working-class families.

Americans everywhere should demand solid evidence, robust debate, honest congressional hearings, and responsible energy and environmental decisions. We need to prevent further economic bloodletting, preserve freedom and opportunity, and restore our nation’s prosperity.

Paul Driessen is author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power ∙ Black death (http://www.eco-imperialism.com/) and senior policy advisor for the Congress of Racial Equality and Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, whose new book (Freezing in the Dark) reveals how environmental pressure groups raise money and promote policies that restrict energy development and hurt poor families.

The Social Responsibility of Coal

Omigosh! Reading this is like reading all of the last year’s worth of op-eds, newsletters and blog posting from CARE. It is like the author Paul Driessen got inside CARE and said everything in one smart, and articulate posting. You must read this!

In fact, CARE and Paul are very close--as you will see if you go back and review the various writings available through CARE. But this piece is just brilliant! It captures the current worldwide energy picture in a clear and concise manner. Read it and pass it on to everyone you know who cares about energy.

Relying More on Coal Generates Benefits that are Too Often Ignored
They get little credit for their efforts, but most resource extraction, manufacturing and power generation companies strive to be “socially responsible”--by emphasizing energy efficiency, resource conservation, pollution control and worker safety in producing the raw materials, consumer products and electricity that improve, safeguard and enrich our lives.

It’s not easy, due to the nature of their business, public intolerance for any ecological impacts--and the fact that “corporate social responsibility” (CSR) is often defined and used by activist groups to promote ideological agendas. Above all, activists want to engineer a “wholesale transformation” of our energy and economic system, away from hydrocarbon fuels and into “eco-friendly” renewable resources; reduce our living standards to “sustainable” levels (their definition again); and give them power over the power that sustains our modern society.

This “hard green” version of CSR largely ignores socio-economic considerations, the many benefits of fossil fuel and nuclear power, the significant land and environmental impacts of wind, solar and ethanol--and the oppressive effects of soaring energy prices on jobs and poor families.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi closed down the House of Representatives on August 1, to avoid an energy vote that Democrats would have lost, and later displayed her acumen on the subject when she opined: “natural gas is a clean, cheap alternative to fossil fuels.” News flash: Natural gas is a fossil fuel.

An Energy Economics 101 course is clearly needed, so that members of both parties can legislate more astutely … understand why mining and burning coal is a socially responsible component of sound energy policy … and help stanch the unnecessary flow of $700 billion a year in foreign oil payments.

Energy is the master resource, the foundation for everything we eat, use and do. Sound policies ensure that energy is abundant, reliable and affordable. Restricting supplies in the face of rising global demand drives up prices and sends shockwaves through families, industries, communities and nations.

Average total energy costs for a typical American household doubled from $2,400 in 1997 to over $5,000 in 2007. Food prices also soared, while wages remained relatively stagnant. More low and middle income families have been forced to choose between heating, eating, driving, medicines and housing--with little left over for vacations, emergencies, retirement, college or charity.

Thankfully, most electricity bills rose more modestly, because half of all US electricity is generated using coal, and the price for that fossil fuel has risen far less than oil, gasoline and natural gas prices. However, in places like Florida--where coal is verboten, natural gas is promoted but drilling for it is banned, and wind and solar are all the rage--electricity prices continue to climb. Florida Power & Light must pay four times as much for photovoltaic power as for coal power, the Heartland Institute reports, and schools face budget crunches for buses and electricity.

America has centuries’ worth of coal. Our reliance on this resource has tripled since 1970--but sulfur dioxide and particulate emissions are down 40% and 90% below 1970 levels, respectively, notes air pollution expert Joel Schwartz. New technologies and regulations will reduce coal power plant emissions even further by 2020, but even current emissions (including mercury) pose no significant risks to human health, he emphasizes.

Radical environmentalists worry and wail about speculative health risks, to justify anti-coal campaigns. But their concerns often disappear when the discussion shifts to millions of Africans who die every year from real, preventable lung and intestinal diseases that result from an absence of electricity for cooking, heating, refrigeration, safe drinking water, hospitals and decent living standards. Wind and solar will save few of those lives--and yet green pressure groups stridently oppose fossil fuel, nuclear and hydroelectric power for Africa.

US electricity consumption will continue climbing, even with conservation, because our population and technology use are increasing steadily. Meanwhile, 59 coal-fired plants were cancelled in 2007 thanks to eco-activists, who are challenging 50 more.

The US now has virtually no excess capacity, and switching to natural gas as a primary power plant fuel (and fuel for backup generators to support wind farms) means electricity prices could increase “as much as tenfold,” says energy analyst Mark Mills, especially if we continue to ban drilling. “After that we may see forced conservation, or even blackouts in rotation among business and residential customers.”

Energy shortages and price hikes could cost millions of jobs in the automotive, airline, tourism, food and beverage, textiles, paper making, plastics, chemicals, metals and manufacturing industries--especially if Congress also enacts cap-and-trade rules. Most will never be replaced by “green collar” jobs that some claim will be created by intermittent, unreliable wind and solar energy.

Switching to plug-in hybrid cars will only exacerbate the problem. They will need a well-stocked power grid to plug into, and current energy policies virtually ensure that it won’t be there.

In addition to balance of trade issues, over-reliance on imports has major national security implications, as Russia’s invasion of Georgia forcefully reminded Europe. Germany imports 40% of its natural gas from Russia, and six Eastern European countries are entirely dependent on Mr. Putin’s energy. Shackled further by their opposition to nuclear power, fear of climate change Armageddon and fixation on the Kyoto Protocols, the EU has barely protested actions by a rogue bear that has already cut off natural gas supplies to Latvia, Lithuania and the Czech Republic, to impose its will.

That should cause Congress to reflect more soberly on US dependence on oil from Venezuela, Nigeria, Iran and Russia. Coal could be converted into synthetic liquid and gas fuels, to replace the oil and gas we refuse to develop, but legal and regulatory hurdles restrict that option, too.

A key justification for these anti-energy policies is cataclysmic global warming. However, 32,000 scientists have signed the Oregon Petition, saying they see “no convincing evidence” that humans are causing climate change, or that it will be catastrophic. Climate models continue to predict chaos but, as one scientist wryly notes, faith in their predictions is as misplaced as reliance on emails from Nigeria, advising recipients that they have won the Lotto.

Global temperatures have not increased since 1998, despite steadily increasing carbon dioxide levels, and solar scientists like Pal Brekke say the sun’s formerly high activity level is leveling off or abating, which could bring falling global temperatures.

China and India are planning or building 700 coal-fired power plants; European countries plan to build 50 more in five years, to reduce dependence on Russian gas; and other nations are also increasing fossil fuel use for transportation and power generation.

Thus, no matter how much the USA reduces its energy use, driving, heating, air-conditioning and living standards--no matter how much it punishes poor families or commits economic suicide--its actions would not reduce global CO2 levels, or affect Earth’s climate.

We need to conserve, and continue improving renewable energy technologies that currently provide just 0.5% of our energy. But at this time renewables are simply too inefficient, expensive and unreliable to permit a shutdown of hydrocarbon-based systems.

Putting “social responsibility” and “environmental justice” in the hands of eco-activists and liberal Democrats is like giving a machine gun to an idiot child. We need definitions that recognize the full spectrum of societal needs, and energy policies that acknowledge life in the real world.

Paul Driessen is author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power ∙ Black death (http://www.eco-imperialism.com/) and senior policy advisor for the Congress of Racial Equality and Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, whose new book (Freezing in the Dark) reveals how environmental pressure groups raise money and promote policies that restrict energy development and hurt poor families.

America's Flawed Energy Policies

Omigosh! Reading this recent editorial by Pete DuPont was like listening in on a conversation here at CARE. It has seemed to us that the public is beginning to get a sense of the scary energy place America is in, that they have become disillusioned with ethanol, and that all of this has the potential to impact America’s economic situation for the worse—and soon. But, we have wondered, is this just us? Is this just because we focus on these issues day in and day out? Hallelujah someone with a louder voice is beginning to say what we have been saying for months. If you missed this opinion piece in your regular reading, please be sure to read it here! This piece is also an excellent follow up to our last posting: Climate Change and the Presidental Election.

Energy and the Executive
This election is notable in many ways. For the first time since 1952, neither the president nor the vice president will be his party's presidential nominee. For the first time since 1960, a sitting U.S. senator will be elected president. And for the first time ever, if the Democrats win, the next president will be female or black.

We are also at a fork in the policy road, for any of the three major candidates would lead us in very different directions on major public policy issues, from spending and taxation on the one hand, to international relations and the war on terror on the other.

Equally critical will be their direction on how we generate the energy America needs. Over the past 20 years, have our presidents and Congresses allowed us to drill for the additional offshore oil available to fuel our economy and reduce imports? No. Have they encouraged the building of nuclear power plants that would generate pollution-free energy? No. Are they now supporting the building of coal-fired power plants to generate the electricity our economy needs? No.
We have an abysmal national energy policy, and as our population grows and our economy expands, energy needs will increase. From 1980 to 2006 America's annual energy usage increased from 78 to 100 quadrillion British thermal units, and the figure is estimated to grow to 118 quadrillion BTUs by 2030. If our regressive energy production policies continue when the next administration takes office, our economy and the personal lives of Americans will be severely affected.

We have failed to increase our country's crude oil production. Domestic oil production has declined, to 1.9 billion in 2007 from 3.1 billion barrels in 1980, while imports increased to 3.7 billion barrels from 1.9 billion. We now importing about 60% of the oil we use.

One reason for the imports is that our public policy has forbidden offshore oil drilling for much of the estimated 85 billion barrels of recoverable oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas (an 18-year supply) that are on the Outer Continental Shelf, and another 10 billion barrels of oil in Alaska. Together they could replace America's imported oil for about 25 years, but the first President Bush issued a directive forbidding access to a significant portion of the Outer Continental Shelf. President Clinton extended the restriction through 2012 and vetoed legislation that would have allowed drilling in Alaska.

So America has large amounts of oil and gas, but our efforts to extract it have been significantly reduced by the federal moratorium on drilling. America remains the only nation in the world that has curtailed access to its own energy supplies. Meanwhile China will soon begin drilling for oil off Cuba and in Venezuela.

Among the worst antienergy policies we have experienced was President Carter's 1980 "windfall profits tax" on oil companies, which reduced domestic oil production by between 3% and 6% and increased imports by 8% to 16%. Yet last week Majority Leader Harry Reid and 20 other Senate Democrats introduced a similar 25% tax.

We have failed to allow the construction of new nuclear power plants to add to the 104 that we have in operation. Nuclear power is clean and efficient, but no new nuclear plant construction has been granted permits in the past 30 years. By contrast, China plans to build 40 nuclear power reactors in the next 15 years -- two or three each year.

Nor are we fully using the huge coal resources America has. We have in the past, but an effort to prohibit them has become the environmentalists' goal. NASA climatologist James E. Hansen said last month that "building new coal-fired plants is ill conceived," and that it is time "for a moratorium on coal now with phase-out of existing plants over the next two decades." The phase-out is under way: Of the 151 coal-fired plant construction proposals in 2007, more than 60 have been abandoned as the result of environmentalist pressure. And last month Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas vetoed a bill that would have allowed the construction of two new electricity generators at an existing coal fired power plant -- because they would emit greenhouse gasses.

We have also pursued new energy policies that turn out to be mistaken. Ethanol is perhaps the best example, with congressional enactment of ethanol subsidies -- 51 cents a gallon for production of it, and a 54-cent-a-gallon import fee to keep competitive, less expensive and more environmentally friendly ethanol out of America. Congress in 2005 required 7.5 billion gallons of ethanol to be produced by 2012; and then in 2007 upped that to 36 billion gallons by 2022. President Bush enthusiastically supports subsidized ethanol, and Barack Obama believes there should be a 65-billion-gallon ethanol mandate. Only John McCain wants to end ethanol subsidies and import fees.

Ethanol was a bad idea from the start, for as The Wall Street Journal recently reported, producing one gallon of ethanol requires 1,700 gallons of water (primarily to grow corn). The journal Science recently found that "corn-based ethanol, instead of producing a 20% savings, nearly doubles greenhouse emissions over 30 years."

The good news is that an effort to reverse all these antienergy, antigrowth policies is beginning. Earlier this month Sen. Pete Domenici (R., N.M.) introduced the American Energy Production Act to expand offshore oil production, establish a leasing program to get to Alaska's untapped 10 billion barrels of oil, and support the construction of new oil refineries. The last is a particularly good idea, for it has been 30 years since we have built one in the United States.

The May 11 New York Times contained a surprisingly sensible lead editorial: "The time has come to rethink ethanol. . . . Specifically, it is time to end an outdated tax break for corn ethanol and to call a time out in the fivefold increase in ethanol mandated in the 2007 energy bill."
So perhaps America is beginning to rethink its flawed energy policies. And so it must, for our challenge is to remain competitive in a growing global economy, and that requires feeding the engines of growth with more energy. Our next president must advance drilling for offshore oil, building nuclear power and clean coal fired plants, and developing other energies such as solar and wind power. Otherwise America's people will miss future opportunities and slip backwards economically, and our country will become far worse off than it is today.

Pete du Pont Policy Chairman of the National Center for Policy Analysis. He writes a regular column for OpinionJournal.com, the online news service of The Wall Street Journal.

Complying with Regulations Will Cost a Bundle

Tonight the New Hampshire primary reports are coming in. While CARE is not a political organization, we do watch with interest as politics in America impacts future energy policies. Here we have a posting from a source we do not usually follow as they usually feature stock/investment topics. (If you have not read the past posting from Whiskey and Gunpowder, please check it out.) Here “Whiskey and Gunpowder” looks into what at first appears to be pollution in India and China. But read on. The author, Chris Mayer, brings it around to America’s political season and the issue near and dear to our heart: the economics of energy and on the flip side environmental protection. Chris’ voice is a fresh one with some interesting perspectives. He, like us at CARE, believes energy is under attack. Chris uses the term “utilites are under siege,” but the bottom line is the same. Complying with current, new, and un-thought of regulations will cost a bundle—a cost that will ultimately be borne by the consumer. As you read on, you are likely to want to know more of the unique perspective provided in Whiskey and Gunpowder. Please check them out.

India’s Biggest Problem
“Walking In This Climate Is Such Gentle Agony,” wrote Gozzano to open his book on India.
Guido Gozzano (1883-1916), a distinguished Italian poet, visited India in 1912. He spent six weeks on the subcontinent and wrote letters about his travels. He made many observations about the heat. “Never have I been so glad not to be overweight in this climate,” he wrote. “India is truly infernal for anyone with a few extra pounds.”

Later, he went on to write about how the heat “creates mirages, dissolves in the air, makes it quiver and flutter on the horizon.”

Wonder what Gozzano would make of India today, where on most days you can’t even see the horizon. It’s still hot as hell and humid in Bombay, for example, where many travelers begin their tour of India. (I know the official name is Mumbai, but I found almost all the locals kept referring to the city as Bombay. Plus, the name Bombay conjures up all those familiar images of a long ago past).

Today, the soupy thick smog of pollution makes the air even worse. Visibility is incredibly poor most of the time. For days, I never saw the sun except blurred through a gray screen of smog. You could smell the pollution when you landed and when you stepped outside, and in some places — say, near a standing body of water — the air is so foul, even some locals cover their noses as they walk by.

It’s more than just an anecdote about India, or some irritant for travelers. It’s a serious health issue for the people living there. According to In Spite of the Gods, Edward Luce’s excellent book on India, air pollution causes about one-eighth of premature deaths in India. Hundreds of thousands of children die due to exposure to contaminated water.

Of course, India is not alone in this. China, the other big rapidly industrializing nation on the stage, has big problems with pollution of all kinds, too. Air quality in China is awful. I spent some time in China in 2005, and I remember the stink when I opened my suitcase back home. It smelled like I had lived in a bar for three weeks.

Robyn Meredith, in her recent book on China and India, titled The Elephant and the Dragon, also comments on China’s poor air quality. She writes one section from the city of Chongqing, an industrial city of 30 million people. (For perspective, that’s about the number of people that live in the whole state of California.) “Sunlight barely reaches the ground, dimmed by thick, gray smog,” she writes. “Skyscrapers just three blocks away are mere outlines because of the air pollution.”

Meredith cites the World Health Organization (WHO), which says that 200 cities in China fail to meet WHO standards for airborne particulates that cause respiratory diseases. “All but two of the world’s 20 most polluted cities are in India or China.”

Writer James Kynge calls the environmental degradation a “concealed debt”—which people will pay for eventually. Already, 16 of the top 20 most polluted cities are in China. Kynge writes in China Shakes the World —another terrific book on China—“acid rain falls over 30% of [China's] territory.”

I think you get the idea… The rapid rise of China and India has come with a cost: Serious environmental damage, on many levels.

But the governments know about the problem. Things are starting to change. Delhi was the worst polluted city in the world in 2004, but the government has since taken steps to clean it up. Today, all buses run on natural gas, for example.

In China, too, officials are pushing companies to adopt greener methods. A recent story from the Wall Street Journal talked about some of China’s new tougher stance: “Worried that China's boom is bringing with it supply gluts and high pollution, the government has spent the year trying to rein in the expansion of many industries.”

The WSJ goes on to give examples, including the cement industry. “In cement, for instance, officials are pushing companies to adopt newer and costlier production methods that are less polluting, which should help the meet new environmental goals.”

It’s not an isolated story. Another recent headline reads: “China Shifts Pollution Fight, New Rules Target Export Industry With Stiff Penalties.”

So let’s recap. There is clearly a big problem. We also have some action and policies mandating cleanup and imposing clean air standards. The whole issue is also starting to attract some serious money. Recently, the Wall Street Journal reported General Motors’ announcement that it would invest in green technologies in China, “as concerns about pollution and fossil fuels deepen in the world’s fastest-growing auto market.” GM will put $250 million into building a research facility in Shanghai.

As big of a problem as pollution is, I’m betting there are some fortunes out there for those who have good solutions.

And that’s where I’m turning my eye right now…

It’s also not just an issue in these rapidly industrializing countries. Let’s look at the biggest economy of them all: The United States. You know it’s an election year. “Green” is in. The global warming issue—regardless of what you think of its merits—is a popular one with voters. So politicians need green credentials. That means pushing forward measures to reduce carbon emissions, for instance.

There has already been growing opposition to building new coal plants. Utilities have already shelved a number of these projects. Others are in the process of hashing out deals with state and federal regulators.

Coal provides about half of our electricity. And coal is a dirty fuel in the eyes of the greenies, who fret about the emission of carbon dioxides (so-called greenhouse gases) and other pollutants.

So basically, the utility industry is under siege. It can only do so much with alternative energy. The nation isn’t going to get the bulk of its electricity from wind, solar or nuclear power anytime soon. Coal is still king. And utilities must find a way to work with it.

Complying with clean air regulations will cost a bundle. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that the power industry will spend $2.7-6.1 billion annually between 2010-2020 to comply with the clean air regulations. Those figures will probably prove conservative.

This is the overwhelming issue facing the power industry today: reducing its carbon emissions. This is a difficult issue to tackle and may take some time before real change occurs. Keep looking into this area of the world and you’ll notice that change will have to come before things get too far out of hand.

The Truth About “Alternative Energy”

With the passage of the new energy bill requiring increasing use of “alternative energy,” It seems appropriate to look into what all of this is going to cost and who it will impact—what is the energy reality? With that in mind, we at CARE are pleased to have received two specific postings from a couple members of our team of energy experts.

This first piece is from Roy Innis, national chairman of the Congress Of Racial Equality. You might wonder what a civil rights leader has to say about energy, or why he is even involved in this discussion. Think about it. As this posting and one we will post next indicate, there is no “free lunch.” All of this new technology—if it can even be developed—comes with a big price tag. While everyone wants abundant energy and a clean earth, no one wants to hurt the poor, elderly, or minority families. Yet, that is what we have just done with the newly-passed energy bill. Read Roy’s comments and tell us what you think? Does this change your viewpoint at all?

Why Coal-Generated Electricity is Vital to Our Energy Security
We often hear that “clean, free, inexhaustible” renewable energy can replace the “dirty” fossil fuels that sustain our economy. A healthy dose of energy reality is needed.

Fully 85% of America’s total energy comes from fossil fuels. Over half of its electricity comes from coal. Gas and nuclear generate 36% of its electricity.

Barely 1% comes from wind and solar. Coal-generated power typically costs less per kilowatt hour than alternatives–leaving families with more money for food, housing, transportation and healthcare.

By 2020, the United States will need 100,000 megawatts of new electricity, government, industry and utility company analysts forecast. Unreliable wind power simply cannot meet these demands.

Wind farms require big subsidies and vast stretches of land. To meet New York City’s electricity needs alone would require blanketing the entire state of Connecticut with towering turbines, says Rockefeller University Professor Jesse Ausubel. On a scale sufficient to meet the electricity needs of a modern society, wind power is not the silver bullet.

For three decades, US demand for natural gas has outpaced production. In fact, gas prices have tripled since 1998, to $13 per thousand cubic feet today, and every $1 increase costs US consumers an additional $22 billion a year.

With Congress and states making more gas prospects off limits every year, this trend is likely to continue—further driving up prices and forcing the US to import increasing amounts of even more expensive liquefied natural gas.

American consumers simply cannot afford to halt the construction of new coal-fired power plants, though some politicians, activists and even companies are trying to do exactly that.
As Kansas discovered after its environmental chief blocked a proposed new coal generator, coal projects also come with transmission lines to carry wind-generated electricity and more reliable coal-generated power. Wind farms typically do not. Now a dozen Kansas wind projects are also on hold.

Former Clinton Administration environment staffer Katy McGinty engineered the lockup of 7 billion tons of low sulfur Utah coal, worth $1 trillion. Current and proposed regulations would make it even more difficult and expensive to provide adequate coal-fired electricity.

But the facts support more coal use, not less.

Power plants fueled by coal are far less polluting than 30 years ago. Just since 1998, their annual sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions have declined another 28% and 43% respectively, according to air quality expert Joel Schwartz.

Coal-fired power plants are now the primary source of US mercury emissions only because the major sources (incinerating wastes and processing ores containing mercury) have been eliminated. US mercury emissions are now down 82% since the early 1980s, and new rules will eliminate most remaining mercury and other emissions by 2015.

That leaves carbon dioxide and catastrophic climate change as rationales for opposing coal. However, the latest UN-IPCC report again reduces projections for future temperature increases, polar melting and sea level rise. Moreover, increasing scientific evidence suggests only slight warming, climate change controlled primarily by solar cycles, and storm, drought and sea level trends in line with historical experience.

Yet, claims about imminent catastrophes became borderline hysterical, as delegates and activists traveled to the island paradise of Bali to promote a successor to the Kyoto Protocol.
They and the news media ignored the inconvenient truth that climate chaos horror stories are based almost entirely on computer models and digital disaster scenarios. They likewise ignored the fact that their air travel generated nearly 100,000 tons of carbon dioxide.

Meanwhile, US politicians are promoting initiatives like the Lieberman-Warner bill and Midwestern Governors Association climate pact, which they say will prevent a cataclysm, by slashing CO2 emissions by 60-80% and generating “thousands of megawatts” from wind energy.

If these initiatives become law, Senator Lieberman himself admits, they would cost the American economy “hundreds of billions” of dollars. Electricity rates would soar another 50% by 2012. Millions of lost jobs will be lost, labor unions predict, as companies shift operations to foreign countries.

Preeminent alarmists Al Gore and Hillary Clinton emit more CO2 in a week from the private jets they take to campaign, lecture and fund-raising events, than the average American does in a year. And yet the two are demanding a wholesale “transformation” of the US economy and living standards.

Mrs. Clinton says she is switching to compact fluorescent lightbulbs (CFLs), to save a few kilowatts. But CFLs contain mercury, and a nationwide switch to these bulbs could make them a more significant source of mercury than power plants. Mr. Gore justifies his emissions by noting that he gets (free) “carbon offset” indulgences from his company. He’s not offering free indulgences to the rest of us.

China and other rapidly developing countries will build 1,000 new coal plants during the next five years—with few of the pollution controls required in the USA. That means even major sacrifices by American workers and families won’t affect global temperatures, even if CO2 is the primary cause of global warming—which many scientists say is not the case.

We need every energy resource: oil, gas, coal, hydroelectric, nuclear—and wind, solar, geothermal and biomass.

We cannot replace 52% of our electricity (the coal-based portion) with technologies that currently provide only 1% of that power (mainly wind). Wind is a supplement, not an alternative.

We cannot generate electricity with hot air from politicians eager to create tax breaks, subsidies and “renewable energy mandates” for companies that produce alternative energy technologies—in exchange for campaign contributions from those companies.

We cannot afford to trash the energy we have, and substitute energy that exists only in campaign speeches and legislative decrees.

Doing so would leave a huge energy gap between what we need and what we will have. Poor, elderly and minority families can least afford such “energy policies.”

Roy Innis is national chairman of the Congress of Racial Equality, one of America’s oldest and most respected civil rights groups. This article is based on his testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives in December 2007.

Conservation, the Environment, and “Energy Independence”

As gas prices have been high and global warming has been hot, the media has spent an inordinate amount of time discussing energy. New topics are touted on the nightly news. Those who get their insights from the news--and who do not have a background in the subject themselves--often question why don’t we do this or that. Recently at a public event where CARE was present, a man spouted a comment like: “I am waiting for the day I can hook my care up to the natural gas line at my house and drive on natural gas.” Wouldn’t hat be a nice idea? But in reality it doesn’t work, at least not yet. There are numerous problems with many of the ideas. We need ideas! From ideas, come more ideas, and more. Like a brainstorming session, many of the ideas do not work, but in the pool of thinking, a viable one may surface. But as you hear these new ideas presented, remember, they are ideas—not reality.

Here one of CARE’s Energy Counsel members shed’s light on the difference between energy ideas and energy reality.

Energy Ideas vs. Energy Reality
Few issues in modern history have generated more ideology-driven misinformation than energy. While most would agree that energy is crucial to the world economy, very little public discourse seems based on the intractability of certain facts.

The problem: the huge gap between the theoretical and the practical, the latter affected by logistical and economic considerations. For certain people, the achievement of their desired course of action, based on their preferred world-view, is often confronted with abysmally small odds. It should not be acceptable for governments and non-governmental groups to avoid disclosing the required path and costs for achieving their goals. Many imply that the government and/or taxes should provide the funds, but even then the magnitude of such costs is rarely revealed.

Much of the rhetoric involves issues such as conservation, the environment, and “energy independence.” Exacerbating the situation is the recent clamor about anthropogenic global warming, and the expressed desire to either reduce carbon dioxide emissions (by using non-fossil fuels) or to sequester them.

Let’s examine the big picture of world energy supplies between 2004 (the latest year for which full information is available) and the forecast for 2030. According to the Energy Information Administration:

· In 2004, world energy demand was 446 quads (quadrillion British thermal units). By 2030, demand is expected to be 721.6 quads, a 62-percent increase.
· In 2004, fossil fuel demand was (in barrels of oil equivalent): oil, 30.1 billion; natural gas, 18.5 billion; and coal, 20.4 billion.
· In 2004, those three sources accounted for 86 percent of total global energy use.
· By 2030, expected fossil fuel use will be (again, in barrels of oil equivalent): oil, 42.7 billion (a 42-percent increase over 2004); natural gas, 33.9 billion (an 84-percent increase); and coal, 43.9 billion (a 71-percent increase).
· By 2030, fossil fuels will account for a business-as-usual 86.5 percent of the total energy mix. That’s despite all the rhetoric about alternatives and despite the fact that the total energy demand will increase by 62 percent.

Wind and solar energies, the two most touted non-fossil sources, will not amount to more than one percent, a fraction of total energy demand. The reason: wind-generated electricity is at least twice the break-even cost of natural gas, and even larger than that for coal. Solar, even with speculated and currently non-existent technology, is at least ten times as costly.

The sequestration of carbon dioxide is even more problematic. According to EIA projections, the oil and gas used for transportation and power generation, plus the amount for coal combustion, will result in an increase in world carbon dioxide emissions, from 25.55 billion metric tons in 2004, to 43.68 billion metric tons in 2030, a 71-percent increase.

If only the incremental carbon dioxide above that emitted in 2004 is sequestered, the operating costs would be $180 billion to $540 billion per year (at $10 to $30 per ton, a figure from an August 2003 report by the MIT Laboratory of Energy and the Environment).

If the sequestered carbon dioxide is injected at what is considered a very good rate per well, 10,000 tons per year (a figure from a 2004 report by the National Energy Technology Laboratory), then that would require 1.8 million new wells. That’s about the same number of wells now in production worldwide. At an average drilling cost of $2 million per well, those new wells will cost $3.6 trillion. The ancillary infrastructure for those wells could push the cost to $7.2 trillion – about 60 times the current annual budget for well construction in the industry, estimated at $120 billion.

This is why the anthropogenic global warming issue is so critical. For a country such as the United States, “energy independence” would mean reducing the use of foreign oil and natural gas. It would mean electrifying transportation (at a huge cost in new infrastructure), and using a lot more nuclear and a lot more coal, with far increased emissions to be sequestered.

The path from idea to reality is lined with staggering costs.

Prof. Michael J. Economides, University of Houston and also Editor-in-Chief Energy TribuneHouston, TX

The “Coal is Filthy” Ad-Scam

If you have visited CARE’s website, you’ve seen that we repeatedly use the phrase “Presenting the public with a clear view of the complete energy picture.” Yet, if you’ve been reading our newsletters and this blog, you’d see we have hardly presented a complete view as we have virtually ignored coal—despite the fact that our home page says, “Coal is still a great resource and clean coal technology is rapidly becoming a reality.” Coal is the “ugly step-sister” no longer. We were thrilled when one of our Energy Council Members, Paul Driessen, sent us this commentary that puts coal into the picture.

Ad Campaign Could Impact US Energy Policies and Consumers
Perhaps you’ve seen the prominent advertisements in major US papers featuring an ethnic spectrum of smudge-faced California models, whose misleading claims about emissions from coal-fired electrical generating plants were reinforced by a CleanSkyCoalition.com website. The campaign urged citizens to tell government officials, “No more filthy coal plants.”

The hope is that new laws would make it harder to build more coal-fired plants or retrofit old plants to meet tougher air quality standards, and force massive switching to natural gas. As demand rose and supplies tightened, gas prices would surge. Consumers, especially poor families, would suffer.

Every $1 increase in gas prices costs US consumers an additional $22 billion a year for heating, air-conditioning, food, consumer goods and services—many of which use natural gas for energy or raw materials—says the Energy Information Administration (EIA). Indeed, consumers paid $140 billion more in 2006 for gas and electricity than they did in 2000—an extra $1900 a year for every family of four.

That hit poor families especially hard, and the US manufacturing sector lost 3 million jobs.

But America doesn’t have enough gas to supply needs that energy demand and legislative air quality mandates have helped stoke. Demand has outstripped domestic production since 1985, forcing us to import the difference, largely from less than friendly countries, and in competition with other nations. Following the disingenuous ads’ prescription—substituting gas for coal-fired electricity—would send tsunamis rippling through our economy. Hardly responsible energy.

America certainly could produce more gas. Geologists say the US Outer Continental Shelf could contain 420 Tcf—enough to meet current demand for 15 years. But over 85% of these areas are off limits to drilling; the situation is similar with onshore public lands; and eco purists want to keep it that way.

Electricity provides 40% of all the energy we use, and the EIA and other analysts say the United States will need 100,000 megawatts of new electricity by 2020. Colorado alone will need another 5,000 Mw; Texas, over 25,000. Conservation and efficiency efforts could pare that back somewhat. But growth in population and technologies that use electricity mean we will need every available source of energy: gas, nuclear, hydroelectric, wind, biofuel, waste-to-energy—and coal. Right now, coal generates 50% of all the electricity we consume, and we have no viable alternatives in the near term.

The ads and environmental group websites say coal-fired power plants are responsible for scary-sounding portions of total US air pollution. While burning coal obviously does generate pollution, some inconvenient truths make their Pollution Monsters look more like Sesame Street Cookie Monsters.

Between 1970 and 2004, the US population grew by 40% … its Gross Domestic Product by 187% … miles traveled by 171% … electricity consumption by 115% … and coal burning by 80 percent. And yet, during this period, our aggregate air pollution was cut in half, thanks to steady advances in efficiency and pollution control, air quality expert Joel Schwartz points out. Lead and certain other pollutants were reduced by 90% or more.

Since 1998, annual power plant SO2 emissions have declined 28% and NOx 43 percent, he notes. New rules require large additional reductions during the next decade that will eliminate most remaining power plant emissions. The ads also fail to mention that:
* total air pollution is now so low that it poses no significant health risks, even for children;
* asthma prevalence has been rising even as all types of air pollution have been falling, so air pollution cannot be a factor;
* even eliminating all human-caused ozone would reduce respiratory hospital visits by at most a few tenths of one percent; and
* coal-generated electricity costs much less per kilowatt hour than alternatives—leaving families with more money to spend on nutrition and healthcare.

Coal-fired power plants are now the primary source of US mercury emissions, not because their emissions are large or increasing, but because the real sources of mercury (incinerating wastes and processing ores containing mercury) have been eliminated. The US reduced total mercury emissions by over 80% since the early 1980s; America accounts for only 2% of global mercury emissions; two-thirds of mercury deposition in the States comes from other countries; 55% of global emissions come from volcanoes, oceans and forest fires; and Americans’ mercury exposure is a tiny fraction of levels necessary to cause brain damage.

Nevertheless, new EPA rules require a further 70% reduction in mercury from power plants over the next decade. That’s tremendous bucks for the bang, but it will be done.

Climatologist John Christy points to another consideration. In 1900, the world supported 56 billion human life years: 1.6 billion people times a 35-year average life span. Today it supports 429 billion life years: 6.5 billion people times a 66-year average life span – and they are living far better than anyone in history.

For that we can thank energy, primarily fossil fuels. And in exchange for this incredible progress—if fossil fuels are a primary cause of global warming—we have had a net increase in average global temperature, over the past 100 years, of about 1 degree Fahrenheit, or 0.7 degrees Celsius. (As a percentage of Earth’s atmosphere, carbon dioxide emissions from US coal-fired power plants equal the thickness of a single human hair on a football field.)

All in all, the ad campaign added greatly to the pervasive misinformation that drives so much US energy, health and environmental policy. It will doubtless be used to justify global warming legislation, such as the Sanders-Boxer bill (S. 309) that a new MIT study concludes would impose a tax-equivalent of $4,500 annually on every family of four by 2015—and more thereafter.

As Congress conducts additional experiments on constituents—with mandates, cap-and-trade, tax incentives and other pork-laden “environmental” legislation—the problem will only get worse. Unless citizens demand a change in business-as-usual.


Paul Driessen, Senior Policy Advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power ∙ Black death (http://www.eco-imperialism.com/).