EPA continues to propose job-killing regulations

The current administration professes to care about minorities. After all, the president is at least partly a minority.

Why then does Obama continue to support policies and regulations that do nothing but beat down those he says he cares about?

Follow CARE-blog favorite Paul Driessen as he continues to expose the fallacies in Obama's policies.

And the beat-down goes on
Proposed EPA rules will do more harm than good for human health, especially for minorities
Paul Driessen
Presidential candidate Barack Obama promised that his policies would cause electricity rates to “skyrocket” and “bankrupt” any company trying to build a coal-fired generating plant. This is one promise he and his über-regulators are keeping.
President Obama energetically promotes wind and solar projects that require millions of acres of land and billions of dollars in subsidies, to generate expensive, intermittent electricity and create jobs that cost taxpayers upwards of $220,000 apiece – most of them in China.
His Interior Department is locking up more coal and petroleum prospects, via “wild lands” and other designations, and dragging its feet on issuing leases and drilling permits. Meanwhile, his Environmental Protection Agency is challenging shale gas drilling and fracking, and imposing draconian carbon dioxide emission rules, now that Congress and voters have rejected cap-tax-and-trade. That’s for starters.
The beat-down of hydrocarbon energy goes on. Oil, gas and coal provide 85% of the energy that keeps America humming, but the administration is doing all it can to take it out of our mix. American voters, consumers and workers may want more drilling, mining and use of hydrocarbons, to get the economy going again. But the administration has a different agenda.
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has unveiled another 946 pages of regulations that she claims will protect public health. The regs cover 84 “dangerous pollutants” that are already being scrubbed out of power plant emission streams by a host of innovative technologies. In fact, coal-fired generators now emit a fraction of what they did just 40 years ago.
The most frequently cited of these pollutants is mercury. Higher doses cause well-known ill-health effects, from severe neurological damage to brain damage and death. However, it has been all but eliminated in herbicides, light switches, thermometers and other products.
Its presence in coal and power plant emissions is likewise minimal and declining. The last serious cases of human health impacts from mercury poisoning in the US occurred decades ago – and coal-fired power plants remain the largest source of US-based manmade mercury only because other human sources are essentially gone.
Nevertheless, EPA and its anti-energy, anti-job allies like Climate Progress and Greenpeace are using mercury to spearhead their latest campaign against a fuel that provides half of all US electricity, and up to 95% in many manufacturing states. Even worse, they claim minorities somehow are especially at risk from mercury and other power plant pollutants. They even went so far as to hold a people-of-color-only press conference, to stir up fears and persuade minority interest groups to support the new regulations.
A few elemental facts put the alleged “dangers” power plant mercury emissions in perspective – which EPA and its fellow campaigners steadfastly refuse to do. They also illustrate how EPA abuses science, statistics and tax-funded “education” campaigns to promote needless public anxiety and expand its control over our lives, jobs and consumer choices, on a host of pollutants that pose little actual risk.
First and foremost, we are talking about a mere 41 tons of mercury per year. If that sounds like a lot, consider the following.
The United Nations Environment Program estimates that the cremation of human remains results in 26 tons of atmospheric mercury per year – from mercury-silver amalgams in teeth fillings.
China’s coal-fired power plants emit six times more mercury than their US counterparts, and power plants worldwide emit nearly twelve times as much, according to UN and other data. Since the atmosphere, jet streams and weather systems are global phenomena, all this mercury is mixed with US emissions,
But even these manmade sources are dwarfed by natural sources.
According to the National Center for Atmospheric Research, forest fires in the Lower 48 States and Alaska annually put over 44 tons of mercury into the air. Root systems carry naturally occurring mercury from soils into their leaves and wood; forest fires release the mercury into the atmosphere and also “roast” it out of burned soils. (Maybe it’s time to ban forest fires – and wood-burning stoves.)
Recent studies by two Cambridge University scientists calculate that man and Mother Nature discharge up to 9,100 tons of mercury into the global atmospheric every year. Most comes from volcanoes, but subsea vents (the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and elsewhere), geysers and forest fires also play major roles.
In other words, US power plants account for less than 0.5% of all the mercury in the air that we Americans breathe. Even eliminating every ounce of this mercury will do nothing about the other 99.5% of that pollutant in America’s atmosphere.
And yet EPA & Company demand that we do just that – at a cost of billions of dollars per year, to “protect” us from infinitesimal or imaginary risks.
Perhaps our helpful bureaucrats and activists could put a Plexiglass bubble over the entire United States, to keep those evil natural and Chinese gases out; plug Old Faithful and Kilauea; keep people (especially minorities) away from Yellowstone National Park; and ban curly mercury-enhanced CFL bulbs.
Add up everything EPA is doing to tax, obstruct and penalize coal use, and we are looking at huge increases in electricity prices. These skyrocketing prices will hammer family budgets, especially in minority communities, impairing nutrition and health, making it harder for many families to heat, cool and pay for their homes, and increasing illness and death.
Soaring energy prices will also force numerous companies to outsource manufacturing operations and jobs. Electricity is a major cost for factories, offices, stores, hospitals and schools. Every price hike hits them with another $10,000 to $1,000,000 or more in new annual expenses that they must pass on to consumers – or address by laying off more employees, whose families then suffer even more.
These hard realities must be viewed against 8.9% national, 11.6% Hispanic and 15.3% black joblessness. (These figures do not include people who have given up on finding a job, or have been forced to take part-time or temporary work.) EPA’s unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats are being completely disingenuous when they say their latest ten-pound stack of rules will bring one milligram of net benefit to human health and welfare, especially for minorities.
EPA’s special “stakeholder briefing” on March 16 certainly conveys the correct image. Environmental activist groups are holding the stake that this rogue agency intends to pound through the heart of America’s economic recovery and civil rights progress.
EPA needs to start basing its policies and rules on science, reality, common sense, and comprehensive public health considerations. Congress needs to reassert its authority over EPA.
Both need to focus on responsible, science-based air and water quality standards that address real health and economic needs – and recognize that “human health and welfare” means more than eliminating every vestige of US manmade emissions, especially when we can do absolutely nothing about the vast majority of natural and manmade global emissions.
America – and our economic and civil rights progress – is waiting.
____________
Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Congress of Racial Equality and Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death.

Is Fracking a "Bad" Word or Can It Provide Economic Boons?

Environmentalists will tell you that hydrofracturing may contaminate aquifers. Only sloppy practices will do so.

Otherwise, hydrofracturing is a long-used technique to blast natural gas from tight shale formations. Might the economic benefits of the process and the retrieved product far outweigh the possible, but not probable, accidental contamination?

The following article by CARE-favorite Diana Furchtgott-Roth reports on a study of the benefits and possible problems with hydrofracturing.

Hydrofracturing Can Fix State Budgets
By Diana Furchtgott-Roth

RealClearMarkets.com

June 9, 2011.

WASHINGTON—To find a remedy for New York State's persistent fiscal problems, New Yorkers need only look down-far down.

Miles below the Empire State's mosaic of cities, suburbs, villages, lakes, farms, and highways lie vast reserves of natural gas, currently off-limits to producers. IF Albany were to permit development of these clean energy resources, it would spawn new jobs, a surge of economic activity—and more tax revenues.

How much more? A new study released Tuesday by the Manhattan Institute, a think tank where I am an adjunct fellow, estimates that in 2015 New York State could enjoy $1.7 billion in additional economic activity, 16,000 more jobs and $214 million in extra tax revenue if its natural gas reserves were developed.

Over the period 2011 to 2020, New York State could gain $11.4 billion in economic output, 90,000 to 108,000 new jobs, and $1.4 billion in tax revenues.

The study was authored by Professors Timothy Considine of the University of Wyoming and Robert Watson of Pennsylvania State University, and Nicholas Considine of Natural Resources Economics, a consulting firm. Nicholas Considine is the son of Professor Considine.

Neighboring Pennsylvania produces over 80 billion cubic feet of natural gas a year. It has 296 wells in the Marcellus Shale, a geologic formation that stretches into New York and West Virginia. Those wells have given the Keystone State an added $1.7 billion in economic activity a year and 18,000 jobs.

Whereas Pennsylvania , Texas, Arkansas, among others, are tapping into their natural gas reserves using a new method called hydraulic fracturing, New York has effectively banned the process, at least for the present, on the grounds that it might cause environmental damage, especially contamination of underground water.

In 2010, then-Governor David Paterson issued Executive Order 41, which bans new drilling permits until the New York Department of Environmental Conservation issues a new Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement. It was due to be published this month, but has been delayed until early September, according to a spokesman for the Department, to allow incorporation of the many comments received.

What is hydraulic fracturing, and why is it so controversial? Also known as hydrofracturing, or fracking, it is a method of extracting natural gas and oil from shale formations and packed sand. Wells are drilled 4,000 to 5,000 feet below the surface, and then sometimes curve to drill horizontally. Fluids are then pushed into the well to separate the gas from the shale and sand and so make it extractable.

Due to the irregular distribution of natural gas underground (small pockets are spread unevenly within the tight rock, like bubble wrap) the only way to remove the gas from the shale is through hydrofracturing and horizontal drilling, say industry experts.

Hydrofracturing techniques have been known since the 1940s, but have recently become more widespread, and therefore controversial, as the long, upward trend of oil prices has made shale formations of natural gas look more profitable.

Hydraulic fracturing has made trillions of cubic feet potentially available, and has driven the price of natural gas down to its current level of $4.69 per million Btu from $7 or $8 per million Btu between 2004 and 2009. As a result of all this, estimates of recoverable U.S. natural gas have climbed dramatically, from 1,100 trillion cubic feet in 1990 to 2,587 trillion cubic feet today.

Natural gas is a cleaner burning fossil fuel with a quarter of the carbon emissions of coal. Emissions from natural gas burning automobiles are 25 percent cleaner than from gasoline or diesel engines. So, one would think that natural gas would be popular with environmentalists.

But environmentalists do not like hydrofracturing, because they are concerned about water contamination. Because wells pass through clean water aquifers, many enviros fear that the chemicals used in a hydrofracturing job will be released into the earth and contaminate the aquifer.

Another concern is the disposal of water used in the drilling process. Typically 25 percent of the water is recycled back up to the surface. Many skeptics worry that the water brought to the surface is dumped directly into rivers and streams, that the lined pits used to hold recycled water contaminate the soil, or that accidents involving the trucks carrying the recycled water could cause irrevocable environmental damage.

Further, the 75 percent of hydrofracked water that remains underground worries people because of possible contamination of the aquifer.

Lastly, water usage itself is a point of contention. The critics point out that hydrofracturing jobs deplete large amounts of water, with large jobs using four to five million gallons.

Some of these worries, while conscientious, are misguided, the Manhattan Institute study explains.

Natural gas deposits, at 4,000 to 5,000 feet below ground, are well below the 500 to 700 feet depth of the water tables. Dense shale rock lies in between the two strata. The rare but well-published cases of water table contamination occurred due to poor casing jobs or improper drilling techniques and were immediately prosecuted by the governmental authorities.

Wastewater from the hydrofracturing process is trucked away or piped to Environmental Protection Agency-certified treatment facilities. Until then, companies store it in steel or earthen-lined pits. Steel pits provide more protection and New York could require steel pits to be used.

Some water is recycled and used again for other drilling operations. Flowback from hydrofracturing fluids has never contaminated an underground aquifer or above ground water source.

A large hydrofracturing project may require four to five million gallons of water. This seems large, but it is small in comparison to total household consumption. Pennsylvania residents use more than 300 billion gallons (62,800 gallons per household) a year. Tax revenues from natural gas exploration can be used to improve state parks and rivers, rendering the environment cleaner than it would have been otherwise.

Professor Considine and his team report that Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection data show that between 2008 and 2010, 7.9 percent of wells had serious violations of the stringent regulations placed upon them by the state. These violations occurred not because of the process of hydrofracturing itself, but rather because of improper drilling or poor casing jobs.

In other words, hydrofracturing itself is not the villain. Sloppy drilling and casing are problems—but they are neither inevitable nor pervasive.

Professor Considine calculates that the economic damage resulting from the environmental effects of a typical shale well came to $14,000, low compared with the benefits per well of $4 million. It is impossible to have costless manufacturing of any product or human activity, and the benefits far outweigh the costs.

New York had to close a budget deficit of $8.5 billion in fiscal year 2011, and it faces continued budget deficits in future years. For fiscal health, New York should copy Pennsylvania and develop its natural gas reserves.

Diana Furchtgott-Roth is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute.

THANKS TO GLOBAL WARMING ALARMISTS, JOBS ARE BEING CUT IN BRITAIN

We in the United States think we have it bad with government regulations!

Heed the lesson in Great Britain where the government is mandating the upgrading of houses and businesses to "E" rating, whatever that entails, by 2016. If a homeowner cannot afford the upgrades, no problem, the government will do it for them and charge the home or business owner in installments in their energy bills for the foreseeable future.

We at CARE don't want to go that route.

The Britons are also uprising about wind farms on the hills of Wales.

Do we want all of our landscapes to be covered with wind farms, solar arrays, and other "green energy" eyesores or should we stick with tried-and-true gas-powered energy, using the natural gas that the United States is blessed with in plenitude.

Become active. Call your Congressmen and say you support expedited natural gas and oil drilling!

GLOBAL WARMING NEWS FROM THE BRITS, BY: DENNIS T. AVERY

Posted on May 29, 2011 by CGFI

My colleague Bennie Peiser, of Britain’s Global Warming Policy Foundation, offers some of his latest man-made global warming news:

The Sunday Times noted on May 22 that the UK government has agreed to cut its greenhouse emissions 50 percent by 2027. As a result, “Tata Steel last week announced it was cutting 1,500 jobs at its Scunthorpe and Teeside plants. The company, which employs 21,000 in Britain, has held high-level talks with government in recent weeks over its energy plans. . . . Ineos founder Jim Ratcliffe warned that he could be forced to shut the firm’s Runcorn chlorine plant, a big energy user . . . and employer of more than 1,000 people. According to Civitas [the think tank] . . . total energy bills . . . could rise by 141 percent by 2020.”

The Henley Standard said May 23 that houses and business premises as of 2016 must qualify for at least an “E” energy rating. At least 682,000 properties will need to be improved—and “this will radically increase rental costs as landlords withdraw their properties from the rental sector.”

Homeowners will also have to retrofit their houses with required energy-saving features such as double-glazed windows and more insulation, said The Guardian May 19. “The householder pays nothing up front, but the equipment and installation costs will be added in installments to the household’s energy bills for years.” At the moment, says the Guardian, householders will be charged market interest rates, which could mean 8 percent annually. Germany has attracted homeowner cooperation with subsidized loans as low as 2.65 percent—but the British government probably can’t afford to offer that.

The Sunday Telegraph of May 22 says the Welsh Assembly faces “the biggest consumer demonstration so far in Britain” if it goes forward with a plan for 800 giant new wind turbines on mid-Wales hills. In the Welsh Parliament, Glyn Davies said “the two-megawatt turbines would cost at least [$2.7 billion, plus another $500 million] for the infrastructure.” In contrast, a far bigger gas-fired power plant near Plymouth will produce power without subsidy at one fifteenth the cost—and without disfiguring the Welsh hills. “How many of those assembly members,” he asked, “will manage to step outside the bubble of illusion surrounding wind power?”

David Rose in The Mail on Sunday, May 22, reported a remarkable meeting of climate skeptics and “warmists.” He asked John Mitchell of the British Meteorological Office how long the planet’s non-warming would have to continue before [Mitchell] would start to question the computerized climate models. Mitchell replied, “People underestimate the power of models. Observational evidence is not very useful.” In other words, don’t doubt the coming disaster of man-made global warming just because the planet has stopped warming.

Henrik Svensmark of the Danish Space Institute told the meeting, “a key determinant of climate is the level of cosmic rays from outer space that hit the earth: these high-energy particles ‘seed’ the clouds. . . . More rays mean more clouds, and in turn a cooler climate.” Svensmark has demonstrated that “quite small variations in the amount of cloud cover have a big effect on temperature, leaving only a “small ‘residual’ role for man-made CO_2.”

Finally, Briton Matt Ridley in the May 21 Wall Street Journal reported, “Haiti meets about 60 percent of its energy needs with charcoal produced from forests. Even bakeries, laundries, sugar refineries and rum distilleries run on the stuff. Full marks to renewable Haiti, the harbinger of a sustainable future! Or maybe not: Haiti has felled 98 percent of its tree cover and counting. . . . Haitians are now burning tree roots to make charcoal.”

This entry was posted in Latest News and tagged Bennie Peiser, Britain's Global Warming Policy Foundation, Civitas, cosmic rays, dennis avery, dennis t. avery, Global Warming, greenhouse emissions, man-made Global Warming, The Henley Standard, The Sunday Times, wind turbines.

100-Watt Incandescent Light Bulbs? Only 7 Months Left to Buy Them!

Do you hate those squiggly light bulbs, called CFLs? Read on to find out what CARE blog-favorite Diana Furchtgott-Roth has to say about our government banning incandescent light bulbs. You know the ones — those invented 130 years ago that lit up the Industrial Revolution. Speak out so you don't have to hoard your favorite light bulbs.

A Call For Light Bulb Sanity

As seen in RealClearMarkets.com
June 2, 2011.

WASHINGTON—America doesn't usually have shortages. Consumers as a rule can find what they want to buy at stores or online. But in 212 days, on January 1, 2012, Americans won't be able to buy 100-watt incandescent light bulbs, the kind Thomas Edison invented and the only kind many of us know—and prefer.

That's because incandescent light bulbs are being phased out by wattage over a two-year period, starting January 2012. The 100-watt bulb will be the first to be outlawed, by act of Congress, followed by 75-watt bulbs in January 2013, and 60- and 40-watt bulbs in January 2014.

So consumers who want to stock up have seven months to buy 100-watt bulbs, 19 months to buy 75-watt bulbs, and 31 months to buy 60- and 40-watt bulbs.

The legislation outlawing the 130-year old light bulb was introduced in 2007 by then-Representative Jane Harman, a California Democrat who resigned in February, and Representative Fred Upton, a Michigan Republican. The bill was rolled into the Energy Independence and Security Act, signed by President George W. Bush in December 2007.

The reason for ending the use of incandescent bulbs is to save energy. They burn more electricity than do several newer types of bulbs.

Mr. Upton is now chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. While lobbying among Republicans for the position, he promised to try to repeal the section of the 2007 energy bill that prohibits incandescent bulbs.

"We have heard the grass roots loud and clear, and will have a hearing early next Congress," he said last December. "The last thing we wanted to do was infringe upon personal liberties—and this has been a good lesson that Congress does not always know best."

But Mr. Upton's committee has yet to hold the promised hearing, even though Representative Joe Barton, a Texas Republican, proposed the Better Use of Light Bulb Act (BULB) on January 5.

Charlotte Baker, Chairman Upton's press secretary, told me in an email that "the committee plans to hold a hearing on lighting efficiency standards later this month," but she would not tell me whether the BULB Act would be included.

The bill, which has 62 cosponsors, 61 Republicans and one Democrat, would repeal the phaseout of incandescent light bulbs. A companion bill in the Senate is sponsored by Wyoming Republican Michael Enzi, and has 28 cosponsors.

The House Republican leadership has evinced no interest in bringing the Barton bill to the floor.

In the meantime, it is perfectly lawful for consumers who prefer incandescent bulbs to stock up. Congress does not prohibit their use at home.

Without traditional light bulbs, Americans will be left to choose between three different types of new bulbs: compact fluorescent bulbs, known as CFLs, halogens, and light-emitting diodes, or LEDs.

All three cost more, but are said to last longer than incandescent bulbs. As with hybrid cars, they carry a higher purchase cost but supposedly lower operating costs over time.

But compact fluorescents, LEDs, and halogen bulbs all have disadvantages.

The new bulbs are expensive. Today a conventional 100-watt bulb costs 58 cents on Amazon.com, compared with $2 for a CFL and $8.50 for a halogen. The LED is not yet available in a 100-watt size. The energy-efficient versions are supposed to last longer, but many people prefer not to pay the greater up-front cost. Or, if they have rooms they use infrequently, they don't see the point of putting in long-life bulbs.

Plus, many people do not like the light cast by fluorescents, even though these bulbs are the least expensive of the alternative energy set. Some say the light casts a yellow or blue tint, that it flickers, that the bulbs hum, that the light gives headaches.

And there is a back-end problem: compact fluorescents present disposal problems because they contain mercury. The Energy Department lists complex rules on its Web site here for disposing of the new bulbs.

If a CFL breaks, EPA instructions include leaving a room for 15 minutes and turning off forced air heating and cooling. Then, bulb remnants should not be swept up with a broom or vacuum cleaner, but carefully scooped up using stiff paper and placed in a canning jar or sealed plastic bag. Afterwards, sticky tape or wet wipes should be used to collect the last fragments.

This is not something most people want to do when they drop a light bulb. They just want to sweep it up, throw it in the trash, and get on with their day.

Even when a compact fluorescent light bulb reaches the end of its natural lfe, it cannot be placed in the garbage, according to EPA. It must be turned in at special recycling centers. EPA has links to recycling centers on its Web site. Consumers are instructed to keep purchase receipts, because if the bulb fails before two years, the customer can ask the manufacturer to replace it without charge.

Whereas incandescent bulbs are made in America, in plants such as Osram Sylvania's Kentucky facility, the vast majority of the new fluorescent bulbs are made in China, because twisting the glass into a CFL's spiral shape is labor-intensive. One American plant, Neptun, opened in Lake Bluff, Illinois , with funding from the stimulus program, but that is the exception rather than the rule.

It's unlikely that more CFL plants will open in America because of the high labor costs. It's not that CFL plants have moved offshore, CFLs were never made in America due to high labor costs. The main producers of CFLs, Philips, Sylvania, and GE, make their bulbs in China, with some Philips bulbs made in Poland.

Calls to repeal the incandescent light bulb ban are coming from consumers, who prefer incandescent lamps. According to the National Association of Electrical Manufacturers, approximately 25 percent of bulbs sold in 2010 were CFLs, and the rest were incandescents.

Businesses are opposed to changing the law. Light bulb producers have invested in new technology and want the eventual payoffs. They want an industry standard, and they don't mind if it's more expensive for the consumer.

Consumers should be free, in my opinion, to choose the light bulbs they prefer. If Congress believes that consumers should conserve energy, it can impose a tax on the model bulbs whose use it would discourage, or on electricity in general.

The argument that consumers are irrational, that they don't want to pay more upfront for a better, longer-lasting, product, doesn't square with reality. Consumers buy plenty of expensive goods, ranging from luxury cars to the latest smart phone. When consumers want something, they buy it. And they don't seem to want fluorescent bulbs.

Chairman Upton, Americans will start to lose their incandescent light bulbs in 212 days. How about voting Mr. Barton's bill out of committee and sending it to the House floor?

Diana Furchtgott-Roth is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute.

Carbon? Carbon Dioxide? They’re the Same, Aren’t They?

Well, no, they are not the same. Pundits, politicians and some who just want to appear smart may think they are the same thing.

But because you want to be, as well as look, intelligent, you need to know the difference.

CARE blog-favorite writer Paul Driessen explains it so well, that the next time you are drawn into a discussion on climate change, or whatever the current buzzword is for carbonphobes, you will know how to outsmart the strongest spinmeister.

And you will be doing it with facts, not agenda-driven arguments that sooner or later fall flat on their faces.

Carbon and carbon dioxide: Clearing up the confusion

Let's restore common sense to our public policy debates on energy and climate

By Paul Driessen

We are constantly bombarded with information much of it inaccurate, misleading, even deliberately so.

We are frequently told we must reduce carbon emissions, support carbon disclosure and invest in carbon trusts to prevent catastrophic global warming, global climate change or global climate disruption. News stories, advocacy and lobbying activities, and corporate ethics promotions frequently use carbon and carbon dioxide almost interchangeably; some occasionally talk about dangerous carbon monoxide emissions.

Torn by misplaced hydrocarbon guilt, wanting to do right ecologically, and often scientifically challenged, people are naturally confused. Because so much is at stake for our energy supplies and prices, jobs, economies, living standards, budget deficits and environment clearing up that confusion is a high priority.

Carbon (chemical symbol C) is what we burn to get energy to power modern society. Carbon is the molecular building block for wood, charcoal and coal, and hydrocarbons (HC) like oil and natural gas. Cars and power plants do not emit carbon, except in the form of soot. Thus, talk of carbon disclosure or reducing our carbon emissions is misleading, unless one is confessing how much charcoal was used at a picnic, or apologizing for not having pollution controls on a wood-burning stove.

Carbon monoxide (CO) is an odorless, deadly gas. A natural product of combustion, it increases when ventilation is poor, oxygen levels are low and burning is inefficient. It's why we shouldn't use charcoal grills indoors or operate cars in garages, unless we're suicidal.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is another natural byproduct of combustion, from power plants, factories, vehicles, homes, hospitals and other users of wood, coal, petroleum and biofuels. This is what many environmental activists, politicians and scientists blame for recent and future climate change.

(The other major byproduct is water vapor or steam plus pollutants that reflect impurities in the fuel and are removed via scrubbers and other technologies, or reduced by controlling the temperature, airflow and efficiency of combustion processes: sulfur and nitrogen oxides, particulates, mercury and so on.)

Literally thousands of scientists vigorously disagree with the hypothesis that CO2 is responsible for climate change. It plays only a minor role, they argue, in a complex, chaotic climate system that is driven by numerous natural forces, cycles, and positive and negative feedback loops. They also note that CO2 increases have followed, not preceded, temperature rises, throughout Earth's history.

CO2 constitutes a mere 0.0380% of our atmosphere. That's 380 parts per million (380 ppm), which sounds much more threatening, especially when used in juxtaposition with the pre-Industrial Revolution figure of 280 ppm. But even that 100 ppm increase represents only 0.0100% of Earth's atmosphere — equivalent to one penny out of $100.

380 is far below historical CO2 levels. During the Jurassic and Early Carboniferous periods, geologists calculate, our atmosphere contained 1,500-2,500 ppm carbon dioxide. However, even at today's comparatively CO2-impoverished levels, this trace gas is vital to the health of our planet.

As every grade schooler learns, CO2 enables photosynthesis and plant growth: carbon dioxide and water in, oxygen and plant growth out, through complex chemical reactions. Without CO2, there would be no plants and no oxygen; life as we know it would cease. Carbon dioxide is truly the gas of life and no attempt by Al Gore, James Hansen or the EPA to brand it as a dangerous pollutant can change that.

The 100 ppm rise in CO2 levels came courtesy of two things. As oceans warmed, after the Little Ice Age ended 160 years ago, they released some of their carbon dioxide storehouses. (As with beer and soda water, seawater is able to retain less CO2 as it warms.) The rest came from hydrocarbon fuels burned during the Industrial Revolution and modern era, and from billions more impoverished people still burning wood and animal dung in open fires.

Though vilified by radical greens and climate alarmists, hydrocarbon energy and the Industrial Revolution have hugely benefitted mankind. They doubled average life expectancies in industrialized nations and increased prosperity, overall health and living standards, in proportion to the ability of poor communities to acquire electricity and modern technologies. Thus, telling poor countries to limit hydrocarbon use, and focus instead on wind and solar power, sharply limits their ability to modernize, create jobs, and improve health, living conditions and life spans.

And all that extra CO2 from electrical generation and other economic activities? As Drs. Craig and Sherwood Idso explain on their CO2science.org website and in their fascinating book, The Many Benefits of Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment, the extra carbon dioxide has blessed people and the planet in at least 55 ways.

For example, increased atmospheric carbon dioxide increases the photosynthesis rates for plants. It enables plants to extract more moisture from the air and soil, thereby expanding root systems that stabilize soil, reduce erosion and help plants survive better during droughts.

Higher CO2 levels also reduce the need for plants to keep their stomata (pores in leaves) open to absorb carbon dioxide and in the process release moisture from the plant further increasing drought resistance. Because stomata don't need to be open as much, plants also reduce their absorption of harmful pollutants that can damage their tissue. As with the air in greenhouses, rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations improve nitrogen fixation by soil bacteria, increasing the availability of this important chemical.

CO2-enriched air also increases plants' ability to manufacture Vitamin C, antioxidants, and health-promoting substances in medicinal plants, while likewise improving plants immune systems and ability to withstand a wide variety of common plant diseases.

Many climatologists and astrophysicists believe recent sun spots, Pacific Ocean and global temperature trends suggest that our planet may have entered a cool phase that could last for 25 years. If that is the case, the additional carbon dioxide being emitted by China, India and other developing countries could bring a major additional benefit: helping to protect wildlife habitats, enhance oceanic biota and preserve crop yields under sub-optimal climatic conditions.

Attempts to coerce expanded wind and solar installations will require that we devote still more land, raw materials and taxpayer subsidies to these expensive, unreliable energy supplies. And trying to capture and store carbon dioxide from power plants and factories will require trillions of dollars and vast supplies of energy, to take this plant-fertilizing gas out of the atmosphere and inject it under high pressure deep into the earth and keep it from escaping, to kill animals and people.

To get 1,000 megawatts of net electricity from a power plant designed for CO2-capture-and-storage would require building (at minimum) a 1,300-MW plant, burning at least one-third more fuel than a conventional plant does, using over one-third of the 1,300 MW to power the CCS equipment and paying much higher electricity prices. The impact on factories, shops, jobs, household budgets and fuel supplies would be significant.

Legislators and regulators need to focus on controlling unhealthy amounts of real pollutants (based on valid medical and environmental science) and keep their pesky hands off our CO2!

____________

Paul Driessen is senior policy adviser for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and Congress of Racial Equality, and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death.

Advice for Mr. Obama on Energy

Somehow, President Obama's energy policy just doesn't make sense. On one hand, he says he advocates increasing oil and natural gas exploration. Then, on the other, wants to tax energy companies at a rate that makes oil and gas exploration prohibitive. So, which is it?
At the same time, all Americans are facing gasoline prices that are creating extreme financial hardship. For those who are unemployed, getting to a job interview (if they can get one at all with the hundreds who apply for the same position) is something they can't afford.
In addition, the tragic situation in Japan, dealing with imploding nuclear plants, seems to set the future of U.S. nuclear energy development back decades. In this article, the author provides Obama with some ideas he may want to consider. Soon. As in today.

By Diana Furchtgott-Roth


With Japan's nuclear disaster and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid blocking the disposal of spent nuclear fuel in Nevada's Yucca Mountain, prospects for approving more U.S. nuclear power plants are dimming. But what about oil and natural gas?

With crude oil over $100 a barrel and gasoline prices surging in some U.S. regions towards $4 a gallon, America's options include:

(1) Getting more American oil out of the ground;

(2) Tapping our 727-million barrel Strategic Petroleum Reserve;

(3) Discouraging production of oil and gas in America; and

(4) Using less energy.

Today, a subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee holds hearings on some of these issues.

With higher prices, we're already choosing Option 4.

So far President Obama has, to his credit, avoided Option 2, tapping the SPR. That's wise, because dipping into the reserve would have little or no effect on gasoline prices and would weaken the country's ability to cope with a shortage if supplies of foreign oil were pinched.

Further to his credit, Mr. Obama declared on March 11, "First, we need to continue to boost domestic production of oil and gas." That seems to point to Option 1.

Unfortunately, however, Mr. Obama has proposed tax increases that would discourage domestic production just when he states that it is imperative to expand it. He says he wants Option 1, but he is choosing Option 3.

The taxes in Mr. Obama's 2012 budget would make domestic oil relatively less profitable, and tend to raise the country's already high fraction of imports of crude and product. Such taxes would result in the substitution of foreign oil for domestic, and curtail well-paying jobs in domestic exploration for and production of oil.

Mr. Obama's budget raises $3.6 billion in 2012 and $46 billion over the next decade from direct tax increases on oil and gas, more than on any other industry. Plus, a disproportionate share of tax increases on overseas income and higher Superfund levies would hit oil hard, raising another $21 billion, for a total of about $67 billion over ten years.

His proposals include $18.3 billion over ten years from repealing the domestic manufacturing deduction for oil and natural gas companies. Currently manufacturers can take a deduction from taxes of 9% on their income from domestic production. Oil companies have a lower deduction of 6%.

Under Mr. Obama's proposal, the deduction for oil and gas companies would be eliminated completely, so oil companies would be the only domestic manufacturers not to qualify. Singling out one industry makes no sense. If domestic manufacturing is not worthy of a deduction, why not repeal it for all industries?

Mr. Obama wants to raise $12.4 billion over ten years from repealing expensing of intangible drilling costs. Intangible drilling costs are those that do not have a salvage value, such as those for labor and well preparation, in contrast with drills and rigs, which are written off over the life of the equipment.

Currently, independent oil companies can expense 100% of intangible drilling costs, and larger integrated oil companies can expense 70%. Under the proposal, intangible costs would be depreciated over the life of the well, adding to costs of production. Yet in most other industries, such as scientific research, nonsalvageable costs of creating assets can be expensed.

Mr. Obama would raise $11 billion over 10 years from getting rid of percentage depletion for oil and natural gas wells, a provision that affects smaller wells which pump up to 1,000 barrels per day.

He would effectively raise taxes on U.S. producers by curtailing credits for taxes paid to foreign governments on production abroad. One international tax provision, raising $10.8 billion over 10 years, would limit credits against American taxes for taxes paid to foreign governments, increasing effective tax rates of oil companies.

Such tax increases would shrink the profitability of American companies vis a vis foreign ones. Foreign companies might win out in bidding wars for all phases of U.S. petroleum development because their tax burdens would be lower.

In contrast, Mr. Obama wants to invest in "clean energy technology," far more expensive than oil and gas, raising households' energy costs and effectively shrinking their income.

Testifying in today's hearing is Lucian Pugliaresi, president of the Energy Policy Research Foundation, a non-profit research organization. His testimony points to the importance not only of supply and demand for setting energy prices, but also to expectations about future events, such as world demand, availability of supplies, and government policies.

He states, "In many cases, the immediate loss in output from any number of unexpected events has much less effect on the world market than the resulting shift in expectations about the ability to expand output over the next 5-10 years."

That's why an aggressive U.S. oil and gas development program would signal to buyers and sellers that America is serious about bringing supplies to market. It would open up a resource base to American innovation and result in lower prices.

American oil and natural gas reserves keep expanding as new exploration occurs and new recovery technologies are devised. Just in the last several years, oil has been found in North Dakota, and huge deposits of natural gas have been discovered from Texas to Louisiana to Pennsylvania and New York. Natural gas prices have fallen below any prior expectations.

With uncertainty in Japan, the Middle East, and Africa, Mr. Obama should be praised for refusing to tap the SPR and for calling for higher domestic oil and gas production. A few changes in his tax proposals would help him achieve his goal.

Diana Furchtgott-Roth is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute.
RealClearMarkets.com

The Reality of the Green World--3 Wolves and a Sheep voting on what to have for lunch

Sometimes, it takes a wake-up call. The world’s environmentalists would have you believe that THEY are the caretakers of our earth and no one and nothing else matters. The fact is, as you’ll read in this compelling article, we are ALL the caretakers, and as the world and its inhabitants evolve, it is our challenge to evolve responsibly. We must. In addition, the Green Movement attempts to prevent humans from being human, and to progress and grow at a rate the earth continues to handle if we are all responsible human beings. But, there must be a middle ground somewhere. In it, may we all do the right thing in this universe that we do not own, but are surely a part of.

By Tom DeWeese

After fighting the radical environmental movement for more than 20 years, I have come to one basic conclusion: the people who understand and care for the environment the least are environmentalists. My experience has shown that the leaders of this once-popular and still powerful force simply use the environment as an excuse to impose a radical, socialist agenda. Meanwhile, the faithful rank and file of the movement believe anything if it is attached to the label “green,” rarely questioning if the statement is true or not.

For example, it is an accepted fact in environmental circles that man is not part of the ecology, only its destroyer. Say the Greens, man’s every action results in damage to the environment and to the plants and animals which are forced to co-exist with him.

Based on that premise, the entire economy of the United States has been transformed to reduce man’s earthbound “footprint,” as human civilization recedes back to that of cave dwellers freezing in the dark. The result is not only a new dark ages for the community of man, but also for the environment.

The anti-human policy says forests must be left alone, never cared for by man. This leaves dead trees to lie on the floor of the forest to rot. Say the environmentalists, this is the natural way. For centuries man has taken care of the forests, clearing out dead wood, improving their ecologic health. No more. The National Forest Service demands that the dead trees stay on the floor, rotting away – in a “natural” habitat.

The fact is, such policy is actually more destructive to the environment. That’s because leaving the dead trees to rot builds up tinder on the floor of the forest. When a forest fire breaks out the fires burn so hot it is nearly impossible to put them out. We’ve all read about how much hotter the fires seem to be today. This is the reason. Moreover, in some cases the floor of the forest is so full of dead and rotting wood that the kindling reaches as high as ten feet, making it nearly impossible for animals to move through it. But that, say the Greens, is the natural, and therefore the right way.

One more thing: the rotting trees bring disease and termites to the other trees, causing more trees to die. In addition, the termites produce about one fourth of the methane that the Greens so fear as a cause of global warming. So, the correct course is clear – clean out the dead trees and make a termite homeless – for the environment. But the Greens refuse to budge to logic.

Environmentalists loath the concept of private property. Only man, they say, can come up with the concept of buying and selling land that is not his. Only man can conceive of fencing in the wilderness. The rest of the natural world lives in harmony, they say, taking only what they need. The idea of ownership of private property is inconceivable to the natural world, say the environmentalists.

Here’s a question I’ve always wanted to ask an environmentalist. Have you ever stuck your hand in a bee hive? If so, do you have any doubt that the bees have a concept of private property, ready to defend it to the death? Other animals move about the land, marking their territory as a warning to others to stay away. Why? Because it’s HIS land. Is there any difference between marking your territory with urine and building fences (other than the obvious sanitary issue)? Bears have territory. Lions have territory. And anyone truly in tune with the environment understands that fact. Only self-appointed environmental experts fail to grasp the massive natural property rights claims that exist throughout the animal world. Apparently, if they can’t see a physical fence as man tends to build, then it doesn’t exist, according to the myopic view of the Greens.

The worst environmental lies come in the policies of endangered species and reintroduction of dangerous predators. For several hundred years our ancestors worked diligently to remove predators from the land so they could live in peace, without fear for their children and live stock. Over the past 20 years, environmentalists have forced government policy to bring back the wolves and Grizzly bears that the ranchers and farmers fought so hard to get rid of. We need to replace the natural environment that man has destroyed, say the Greens. Nature demands it, they claim. Disaster will befall us if we don’t, goes the mantra.

When the people protested, saying the wolves and Grizzles would destroy their lives and lively hood, the Greens said it wasn’t so. Man could live in harmony with these predators, they claimed. In one classic community meeting, when residents expressed their fear of Grizzlies living next door and the possible results that could have on the safety for their children, they were comforted by the local Fish and Wildlife agent who said, just put bells on your children. If there is a “bad” bear out there, the bells will scare them away. Such comforting words caused one wise resident to respond, “seems to me the only way to tell a good bear from a bad bear is if it has bells in its poop.” Such is the lunacy of “going Green.” It has nothing to do with true conservation of the environment.

But the government, following the Green demands, brought in the wolves and the bears. Residents were assured that wolves never attacked humans, instead they stay away from man; that wolves are good for Elk populations; that they only kill what they eat; that man and the wolves will live in a harmonious utopia, right out of a Disney movie.

Say’s the Green’s Public Relations tune: “Our success ensures a future where our children, from coast to coast, Alaska to Mexico, know their wild neighbors — ancient redwoods to long leaf pines, backyard songbirds to elusive wolves — and thrive in the life-giving company they provide.”

But that’s not quite the reality for the folks who actually live in this nightmare. Take a close look at the photos on these pages. This is the reality of growing wolf packs. Pets destroyed. Elk herd being decimated. Since, 2000, wolves have caused 45% of known deaths of radio-collared female elk on the northern range of Montana. Since wolf reintroduction, Elk populations have decreased significantly, from 16,791 in 1995 to 8,335 in 2004. Wolf kills of Elk are double the rate predicted in the Endangered Species Act (ESA). And wolves are not efficient killers, as the Greens claim. Wolves will eat their prey alive, or worse, eat a portion of the animal and leave it to suffer.

Wolves have been sold to the American public as noble animals, wrongly destroyed by humans. In fact, they are treacherous and not to be trusted. They reproduce at a rapid rate, often ten or more pups per litter. They are destroying farms and endangering both domestic and wild life in their path.
In Montana and Idaho, residents are now living in fear of reintroduced, protected, thriving wolf packs. Hunters have reported being surrounded by packs of wolves, cleverly hunted like a scene out of Jurassic Park.

One resident in Idaho reported a pack of wolves sitting in her yard as she walked down her driveway. As she tried to call a neighbor for help, they surrounded her, closing in, almost upon her before help finally arrived. In May, 2007, two Catron County, New Mexico, school children were followed home from the bus stop by three wolves. In December, 2007, at the Glenwood elementary school in New Mexico, a wolf was seen on the playground after multiple reports of the animal being seen in the town. In January, 2008, a wolf kill was found within 70 yards of a school bus stop in Idaho. Yet the wolves are the ones our own government chooses to protect.

It’s another government-funded scheme to make living in your community dangerous, forcing many to leave. Each of these programs is designed to make it just a little harder to live on the land – a little more expensive – a little more hopeless. Of course, the ultimate goal is to remove man from the land, and “rewild” it back to the days before man stepped foot on the soil. Such is the Green dream of utopia.

Finally, there is the great lie hiding in the Green folklore. It’s the near worship of the Native American Indian as the great example of how all humans should live in the environment.
We are told that they lived off the land, taking only what they needed, leaving the range open, respecting every breathing thing, practicing stewardship of it. Of course, it’s not the Native Americans who are perpetrating this lie. They are just another pawn in the Green propaganda machine.

Again, the Green myths ignore reality. I have stood on a great cliff in Helena, Montana where one can clearly see the scars on the opposite wall. These scars were caused by the horns of the buffalo as local tribes ran the entire herd over the cliff in a common hunting practice called a buffalo jump. They killed them all and yet took only what they wanted, leaving much to go to waste. Good stewardship indeed.

Then there is my favorite story of the public meeting in which the government agents were informing the people of the new decision to protect the Spotted Owl. The decision meant that the timber industry was going to be severely damaged, perhaps destroying the town’s ability to survive financially. But this was to be important environmental policy to protect the ecology – just as the Native Americans would do, so went the mantra.

As the people protested, suddenly, one of the community’s Native American residents stood to speak. The government agents, sure they were about to hear some Indian wisdom about natural stewardship of the land, quickly gave him the floor. As all eyes turned to him he announced to the gathering, “in my religion the Spotted Owl is a symbol of evil and I will kill any one that I see.” Oops.
But the Indian myths of perfection march on in the Green movement. Their favorite example of the perfect Indian is that of Chief Seattle. A real Indian chief who lived on the Puget Sound in the Pacific Northwest. Take a look in nearly any National Park Service gift shop, or Al Gore’s book, Earth in the Balance, and you will find the great speech given by Chief Seattle in 1854, in which he tells in stirring words how the Indian reveres the land and the white man has no connection to nature.

Says Chief Seattle, “How can you buy and sell the sky, the warmth of the land? The idea is strange to us. Every part of the Earth is sacred to my people….This shining water that moves the streams and rivers is not just water but the blood of our ancestors… The rivers are our brothers they quench our thirst. The rivers carry our canoes and feed our children. …The air is precious to the red man, for all things share the same breath… What is man without the beasts? …This we know – the Earth does not belong to man – man belongs to the Earth… we do not understand when the buffalo are slaughtered, the wild horses tamed, the secret corners of the forest heavy with scent of many men, and the view of the ripe hills blotted by talking wires. Where is the thicket? Gone. Where is the Eagle? Gone. The end of living is the beginning of survival.”

And there you have it. One incredible Indian saying in one speech everything the Green movement advocates. How fortunate for that movement that they have such a role- model to lead us all to the path of Green righteousness. There’s just one problem. Chief Seattle never said a word of this. All of it was written by a movie screenwriter named Ted Perry in 1971, about one hundred years after the chief died.

The Green movement is based on wrong policy, perpetrated by deceit and promoted by myth. Its true purpose is the destruction of modern human society. If you don’t want to end up living in a cave, shivering by the camp fire, or being lunch for a wolf, then stop feeling guilty about your existence and stand up for your own species for a change.

Tom DeWeese is one of the nation’s leading advocates of individual liberty, free enterprise, private property rights, personal privacy, back-to-basics education and American sovereignty and independence. Go to americanpolicy.org for more information.