Hidden from public view by a media that prefers to blame oil companies for the rapid increase in oil and gas prices is another cause — Democrats’ purist environmental policies. George Will highlights this in an excellent summary today in the Wall Street Journal. (more…)
Many of the same people who champion fuel-efficient, (relatively) environmentally-friendly automobiles are at the front lines calling for the government to "do something" about high gasoline prices. For these people, the news that higher gas prices are driving an unmistakable shift to the very cars they’d like us to drive must present a bit of a puzzle. Which agenda item to support? What a conundrum. But the truth is that their efforts were never needed. Free markets take care of rising prices and increased demand for commodities quite nicely, thank you.
(via memeorandum)
This is Jimmie’s first post for PoliGazette. Welcome Jimmie!
Good God, how is this happening in our own back yard?
It was lunchtime in one of Haiti’s worst slums, and Charlene Dumas was eating mud. With food prices rising, Haiti’s poorest can’t afford even a daily plate of rice, and some take desperate measures to fill their bellies. Charlene, 16 with a 1-month-old son, has come to rely on a traditional Haitian remedy for hunger pangs: cookies made of dried yellow dirt from the country’s central plateau. (more…)
Politico takes time out from hatcheting candidates to cast a skeptical eye on changes in Capitol Hill eating options mandated by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The results give insight into the rather peculiar and nanny-ish authoritarianism that lies just beneath the surface of the “progressive” program to force people to share their environmental ideologies. (more…)
The Houston Chronicle says:
Texas anti-nuclear activists are rallying their forces to challenge the so-called nuclear renaissance that could see the state become home to the country’s first new nuclear power plant project in nearly 30 years.
Peter Dorman of EconoSpeak proposes an interesting alternative to the traditional carbon taxing plans we’re used to hearing. He instead prefers a permit system:
There are two reasons why permits rule. (1) There is great uncertainty about the future relationship between carbon prices and pollution levels (long run elasticity of demand for fossil fuels). Taxes place the burden of this uncertainty on the environment (the amount of pollution); saleable permits place it on costs faced by energy users (fossil fuel prices). (2) Politically, if we go the tax route, we end up in a discussion about taxes. That’s why skeptics thought Dingell might be boring from within. If we center the policy on permits the debate is over how much greenhouse gas emissions we are willing to tolerate. That’s the discourse we need.
Jan Mazurek of the Progressive Policy Institute, unsurprisingly, proposes a third way. Her suggestion is that we follow a model already adopted in California and the EU, and instead focus on “tailpipe standards”:
Adopting “tailpipe standards” would change the equation for American car companies. Market forces would create incentives for them to develop fuel sipping cars that run on gasoline alternatives like advanced biofuels or electricity. Moreover, a tailpipe standard system could be integrated into a national cap-and-trade system for carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that cause climate change. The European Union has already adopted such a system.
As with national cap-and-trade proposals that would cover energy producers, factories, and other big emitters, a tailpipe trading system would give automakers a profit motive to produce cars and trucks that keep CO2 emissions under set limits. Companies with fleets that miss the mark could buy credits from other sources (any company covered in the trading system, not just other automakers), or pay into a fund that could be used to further spur innovation and jobs that breakthroughs would bring. Already, California carmaker Tesla motors is building a new assembly plant in New Mexico for its zero emissions electric sports sedan.
Emphasis is my own. I’m inclined to agree with Dorman here. As a political issue, talking about taxing carbon at the production level is a loser. You’ll undoubtedly get bogged down in silly arguments about stifling the mighty American machine, and Horatio Alger, and so on. Dorman is also correct about placing this onus on the environment, rather than the producers themselves. Even Ms. Mazurek’s suggestion rests on “incentivizing” the polluting industries to minimize the burden they place on the environment, rather than making them evolve and develop alternative technologies.
I’m also skeptical of these taxation plans, or as Mazurek suggests, “fund pooling” plans that still rest upon bad behavior to continue. It’s reminiscent of the SCHIP expansion, which would rely heavily on taxing tobacco to finance its coffers. Meanwhile, the government is spending tax dollars to reduce smoking through education campaigns, thus undermining their own good programs.
“Big Solar” and wind companies are making strides every year in providing for the energy needs of a vibrant, industrial country. Rather than penalizing companies that pass some arbitrary threshold of tolerable pollution, why not incentivize the industry to evolve? The first step would be for government to start investing in and subsidizing alternative energy, and to secondly reduce the support given to industries that continue to produce antiquated and environmentally unfriendly products.
(Cross posted at my blog)
EDITOR’s NOTE: This post has been pulled up, for newer posts scroll down.
Although I supported Greenpeace for a number of years with monthly donations, my subsequent scepsis over the global warming mania has probably forever destroyed my ‘green credentials’. And that is the trouble with the debate over this issue. The near religious fervor with which global warming has been defined as an undeniable fact for which there are only a few pre-ordained causes is deeply troubling. Any critic is either sponsored by AEI or on the payroll of big oil.
Well, now that the storm over An Inconvenient Truth has died, we can brace ourselves for the next round with the release of Leonardo DiCaprio’s 11th Hour. And the first notable critic can hardly be seen part of any special interest groups, unless you count Greenpeace as one. Yesterday, Dr. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace and chairman and chief scientist of Greenspirit Strategies Ltd. took a very critical look at Hollywood’s latest foray into environmentalism. In An Inconvenient Fact he notes that:
DiCaprio’s movie, The 11th Hour, is another example of anti-forestry scare tactics, this time said to be “brilliant and terrifying” by James Christopher of the London Times.
Maybe so, but instead of surrendering to the terror, keep in mind that there are solutions to the challenges of climate, and our forests are among them.
This film should be a good, clear reminder for us to put the science before the Hollywood hype.
Read the whole thing and check out Moore’s site where he reveals how his environmental journey has moved him into a very different direction:
Beginning in the mid-1980s, Greenpeace, and much of the environmental movement, made a sharp turn to the political left and began adopting extreme agendas that abandoned science and logic in favor of emotion and sensationalism. I became aware of the emerging concept of sustainable development—the idea that environmental, social, and economic priorities could be balanced. I became a convert to the idea that win-win solutions could be found by bringing all interests together around the same table. I made the move from confrontation to consensus.
In that spirit, digest Moore’s compelling arguments, but if you have the time: go see DiCaprio’s movie too.
EDITOR’s NOTE: This post has been pulled up, for newer posts scroll down.
During last year’s State of the Union Address, President Bush, feigning boldness, declared that America has a problem. In laying out his energy plan for the year, the president declared that America “is addicted to oil.” Al Gore, certainly the most prominent of the climate change champions, often echoes the very same idea. I have never liked this blame the buyer first argument. One reason is that it simply stinks of arrogant limousine liberalism, not to mention elitism.
Secondly, the argument is a poor one. Americans have no more of a predilection for oil than they did for the horse and buggy two-hundred years ago. What Americans are in fact addicted to is driving to work, heating their homes and putting affordable clothes on their kids (yup, we need oil for that, too). Those monsters!
Because of this, I can’t help but wince when I read stories like this one. John Edwards has decided to wage war on the SUV, declaring that it’s time for Americans to make the “sacrifice” by giving up their Sports Utility Vehicles. Now, I understand that SUVs are a cancer on our highways. I agree that they are gas guzzling eyesores that take up too much space and probably make our roads less safe. However, I find it incredibly naïve to place the onus, and the blame, on the American consumer.
After all, it was Congress that enabled consumers to get hefty tax breaks in exchange for purchasing the SUV, incentivizing the pubic to purchase them instead of the more sensible and environmentally friendly hybrid automobile. It was GM, again at the behest of the oil industry and the federal government, who killed their own electric car models for the sake of the more gas-dependent SUV. Observe which vehicles received the most advertising dollars, and then check out which industries did the most pocket lining on Capitol Hill. There are in fact automobile companies out there building alternatives to the combustible engine, although they face an uphill climb in the battle for subsidies.
Cost should not be an issue. When it comes to energy and transportation, government tends to absorb much of the upfront costs anyway. Governments take the hit when building nuclear power facilities, and government bails out and subsidizes (respectively) transportation industries like airlines and railroads because they are deemed an essential public service.
This shouldn’t be dumped on the consumer, because the consumer will buy what is available and affordable. If we want to see a change in consumption patterns, it doesn’t begin with the American family, it instead begins with Congress and their willingness to invest in environmentally responsible energy and transportation alternatives. The entrepreneurs are there, but they need our help.
The biggest sacrifice shouldn’t come from the consumer, but rather, from the campaign coffers of our elected officials.
(Cross posted at my blog)
Yes, that headline is correct:
HAVING large families should be frowned upon as an environmental misdemeanour in the same way as frequent long-haul flights, driving a 4×4 car and failing to reuse plastic bags, according to a report to be published tomorrow by a green think tank.
The paper by the Optimum Population Trust (OPT) will say that if couples had two children instead of three they could cut their family’s carbon dioxide output by the equivalent of 620 return flights a year between London and New York.
John Guillebaud, co-chairman of OPT and emeritus professor of family planning at University College London, said: “The effect on the planet of having one child less is an order of magnitude greater than all these other things we might do, such as switching off lights. An extra child is the equivalent of a lot of flights across the planet.
Goody! Here is another solution: lets just stop helping the poor in Africa and Asia. If we stop helping them, many will not be able to survive: the less people the merrier!
Ah, environmentalists, they are always entertaining, aren’t they.
One of the rising economies in Europe has decided not to sign the Kyoto Protocal:
Energy and Natural Resources Minister Hilmi Güler has announced that Turkey has declined to sign the Kyoto Protocol for the sake of the country’s national interests, in particular because certain parts of the protocol would hinder Turkey’s infrastructure development.
Güler explained that there were four criteria when it came to energy — energy security, diplomacy, economy and legislative — emphasizing that the situation became even more complicated when Turkey’s geopolitical position was taken into consideration.
At a meeting sponsored by the Marmara Group, he said it is necessary to be cautious when it comes to energy issues, pointing out the binding nature of international agreements, according to the Anatolia news agency.
Remarking that oil had been king for the past 100 years but that natural gas is the heir to the throne, Güler asserted that Russia, which has both gas and oil, has lately been using its energy potential as a means of power in international politics. He added Russia is establishing energy trade connections with countries only if it is strategically important for it. Underlining Turkey’s growing importance in the region, Güler recalled that throughout its history the country has served as a bridge between East and West. Since the Bakü-Tiblisi-Ceyhan pipeline started operation, Turkey’s position has become even more significant, Güler said.
He is right of course.
I really don’t see how Kyoto can survive. There is simply no use to it. The only countries willing to sign it, and live up the agreement, are Western European countries. The result is that they hinder the growth of their respective economy, while the rest of the world does not have that problem.
In short: Kyoto is dead.
Lets come up with something else.
Bad news for environmentalists: Canada seems to be moving towards the US regarding Kyoto:
This week’s announcement by the Canadian government — that it may join a U.S.-led coalition focused on voluntary emissions cuts — could be part of a global shift away from Kyoto’s binding targets.
In a somewhat surprising development, Canada, a long-time supporter of the Kyoto Protocol, announced that it may want to join the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (AP6), a six-nation coalition focusing on voluntary emission-reduction steps and technology transfers. Many environmentalists oppose AP6 out of a fear that it may undermine political support for the legally binding Kyoto treaty.
The partnership, launched in mid-2005, is an agreement among six countries — Australia, China, India, Japan, South Korea and the United States — to develop and share greenhouse-gasreduction technology to combat climate change. According to the AP6 Web site, the six partner countries “represent about half of the world’s economy, population and energy use, and they produce about 65% of the world’s coal, 48% of the world’s steel, 37% of world’s aluminum, and 61% of the world’s cement.” The countries also account for half the world’s greenhouse-gas emissions.
Unlike the Kyoto Protocol, the Asia-Pacific Partnership is voluntary and technology-based, and lets each country set its own goals for greenhouse gas emission reductions, rather than legally binding them to a greenhouse gas reduction target. The group sees itself as “a voluntary, non-legally binding framework for international co-operation to facilitate the development, diffusion, deployment, and transfer of existing, emerging and longer term cost-effective, cleaner, more efficient technologies and practices.”
The beginning of the end for Kyoto?
I agree with Ed: “If Canada joins the AP6, Kyoto will collapse.”
Is Canada becoming the best friend of American conservatives?
It is quite interesting: in Europe we really did not have much of a debate about Kyoto. Everybody seems to have assumed that signing it was the right thing to do. Sure, there were some factions that were less positive about it, but they were - as far as I can tell and remember - conveniently ignored. Up to this day, there is not much of a debate going on. I imagine that if Canada breaks completely with Kyoto, it will cause quite a stir here, first, and then European conservatives will raise their voices and will try to convince their respective government, to do the same as Canada (did).
And if, and when, that happens, American conservatives will say: “we told you so.”
And they would be right.
Meanwhile, I already pointed this debate / conversation out at the Washington Post with Christine Todd Whitman. I participated in it and asked Christine: “Christine, have you heard that Canada may want to join the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate and, therefore, break with Kyoto? What does this mean for Kyoto and for environmentalists? Is Kyoto dead?”
Her answer: “What this recognizes is that it’s been very hard for many of those who signed the protocol to meet the targets, or budgets as they call them. I don’t know whether Kyoto per se is dead, but I do not believe that increased action on the issue of climate change is dead. I think you will continue to see movement and action, but it may not be under the aegis of the Kyoto protocol as we know it.”
This ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court won’t make the White House happy:
“Because greenhouse gases fit well within the Clean Air Act’s capacious definition of ‘air pollutant’ we hold that EPA has the statutory authority to regulate the emission of such gases from new motor vehicles,” the court ruled.
Led by Massachusetts, a dozen states along with several US cities and environmental groups went to the courts to determine whether the agency had the authority to regulate greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide emissions.
“The harms associated with climate change are serious and well recognized,” said judge John Paul Stevens as the ruling was carried by five votes in favor to four against.
The Democratic Daily has John Kerry’s reaction to this ruling. In short: he’s delighted, as are, of course, many environmentalists and not just in America.
Quite an important ruling for all concerned about this matter.
H/t my good friend and personal editor, Holly.
|
|