Topic: Energy and Environment

Proposed EPA Methane Emissions Regulations Are a Waste of Time and Energy

Global Science Report is a feature from the Center for the Study of Science, where we highlight one or two important new items in the scientific literature or the popular media. For broader and more technical perspectives, consult our monthly “Current Wisdom.”

New Actions to Reduce Methane Emissions Will Curb Climate Change, Cut Down on Wasted Energy” reads the headline from Wednesday’s White House blog, posted by Counselor to the President John Podesta (who will be leaving this post soon to serve as a senior adviser to Hillary Clinton’s presumed 2016 presidential campaign).

Let’s hope Podesta didn’t write the title, because it is completely wrong.

First off, methane isn’t energy. It’s a gas. Like anything else, it can be converted to energy, and like a fuel the conversion process produces more energy than it takes to perform it. But methane leaks from the oil and gas sectors no more represent “wasted energy” than does cow flatulence.

More accurately, methane leaks represent lost revenue. Or at least they would if natural gas prices were higher. With prices as low as they are, companies sometime find it more costly to stop the leaks than what they gain by capturing the methane and bringing it to market.

Consider that the price of natural gas is so low in many regions where oil is being extracted from tight shale deposits (for example, the Bakken region of North Dakota and in west Texas) that the methane that is produced along with the oil is simply flared (burned) on site, rather than being captured and brought to market. It is more expensive to develop the transport infrastructure (largely it has to be transported via pipeline) than the return on the sale of natural gas.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration reports that in 2013, more than 260 billion cubic feet of methane was flared in the United States. In essence, this methane represented more “unwanted” energy than “wasted” energy.

Warmest Year on Record Is Still Bad News for Climate Models

Yesterday, Jason Samenow of the Washington Post asked me for a brief comment on NOAA’s upcoming pronouncement of the warmest year in their record. Jason runs CapitalWeather (or “CapitalWeatherGang” or “CWG” to those in the know in Washington) for the Post, and it is a very popular site as he may be the best forecaster around when it comes to D.C.’s hard-to-predict winter weather.

Here is what I sent to him:

Whether or not a given year is a hundredth of a degree or so above a previous record is not the issue. What IS the issue is how observed temperatures compare to what has been forecast to happen. John Christy and Richard McNider, from the University of Alabama (Huntsville), recently compared climate model projections to observed lower atmospheric temperatures as measured by two independent sources: satellites and weather balloons, and they found that the average warming predicted to have occurred since 1979 (when the satellite data starts) is approximately three times larger than what is being observed. CWG would give itself probably a D- if it forecast 12 inches of snow and got only 3.

FYI, here’s the comparison, through 2013 (it was published in 2014).

Big Brother Wants to Watch You Drive

In 2008, the Washington legislature passed a law mandating a 50 percent reduction in per capita driving by 2050. California and Oregon laws or regulations have similar but somewhat less draconian targets.

The Obama administration wants to mandate that all new cars come equipped with vehicle-to-infrastructure communications, so the car can send signals to and receive messages from street lights and other infrastructure.

Now the California Air Resources Board is considering regulations requiring that all cars monitor their owners’ driving habits, including but not limited to how many miles they drive, how much fuel they use, and how much pollution or greenhouse gases they emit.

Put these all together and you have a system in which the government will not only know where your vehicle is at all times, but can turn off your vehicle if it decides you are driving too much or driving in a way that emits too many grams of carbon dioxide or is otherwise offensive to some bureaucratic imperative.

I sometimes think privacy advocates are a paranoid bunch, seeing men in black around every corner and surveillance helicopters or drones in the air at all times. On the other hand, if a technology is available–such as the ability to record cell phone calls–the government has proven it will use it.

Consider all of the lovable progressives out there who think the government should “punish climate change liars,” meaning people who have differing opinions on scientific issues. It’s not much a stretch to think that, any time they happen to be in power, they will use the available technology to make people stop driving. After all, just how important can that extra trip to the supermarket be compared to the absolute imperative of preventing the seas from rising a quadrillionth of an inch?

Of course, the elected officials and bureaucrats who run this system will exempt themselves from the rules. After all, nothing is more important than their work of running the country and making sure people don’t abuse their freedom by engaging in too much mobility.

As California writer Steven Greenhut points out, we already have red-light cameras, and some “eastern states have suspended drivers from using toll lanes after their transponders showed them to be speeders.” They’re not invading our privacy, the greens will argue, they are just making sure that our actions aren’t harming Mother Earth.

Of course, for many it really isn’t about greenhouse gas emissions. Mobility allows (or, as anti-auto groups would say, forces) people to living in low-density “sprawl” where they can escape taxation by cities eager to subsidize stadiums, convention centers, and light-rail lines. All they have to do is ramp down people’s monthly driving rations–something like a cap-and-trade system that steadily reduces the caps–and suburbanites will eventually find that they have to move back to the cities.

No doubt some will argue that even those who drive the most fuel-efficient cars should be subject to the same driving limits because suburban homes waste energy too. Or that people will be safer from terrorists if they are all jammed together in cities close to emergency facilities than if they are spread across the countryside. Or that suburbanites are parasites on the cities and should be reassimilated back into the cities’ benign embrace and taxing districts.

Whatever the argument, the point is that if the technology is there, the government will use it. If people really want to buy cars that monitor their every move and are capable of communicating those moves to some central infrastructure, they should be allowed to do so. But allowing the government to mandate these things is simply asking to have well-meaning, and sometimes not-so-well-meaning, government bureaucrats control how we travel and where we live.

Republicans Should Offer Their Own Climate Change Amendment to Keystone XL Measure

As we predicted here, the Senate’s Keystone XL Pipeline legislation is going to be pelted with global warming-related amendments from Democrats as the price for a veto-proof bill. Most interesting is one by Bernie Sanders (S-VT) which asks the Senate to vote on whether climate change is real and made “worse” by dreaded carbon dioxide emissions.

Of course the first part is true—“climate” and “change” go hand-in-hand.  But the fact is that the warming that is occurring is happening at a rate far below what was forecast, and hasn’t been happening at all for 18+ years now.  So, perhaps some Republican will propose an amendment that in fact approaches the truth in this nuanced issue.

Perhaps, “Climate change is real and it is demonstrable that the climate models used by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to predict the future are on the verge of failure.”

Kerry, Obama Pressuring India on Climate Change

Secretary of State John Kerry is currently in India as advance guard for President Obama’s visit later this month. The president is going there to try and get some commitment from India (or the illusion of a commitment) to reduce its emissions of dreaded greenhouse gases. Until now, India, along with China, has resisted calls for major reductions, effectively blocking any global treaty limiting fossil fuel use. The president is very keen on changing this before this December’s United Nations confab in Paris, where such a treaty is supposed to be inked. 

Kerry’s mission is to get India ready for the president. Speaking at a trade conference in the state of Gujarat, Kerry said, “Global climate change is already violently affecting communities, not just across India but around the world. It is disrupting commerce, development and economic growth. It’s costing farmers crops.”

In reality, global climate change is exerting no detectable effect on India’s main crop production. 

As shown below the jump, the rate of increase in wheat yields has been constant since records began in the mid-1950s, and the rate of increase in rice yields is actually higher in the last three decades than it was at the start of the record.

Further, if Kerry was saying that climate change is reducing crop yields around the world, that’s wrong too. The increase in global yields has also been constant for decades.

Highways and the Federal Gas Tax

Another day, another news article supportive of raising the federal gas tax. This time it’s the Wall Street Journal. The article notes that there is strong public opposition to raising gas taxes, but then proceeds to give us the arguments in favor of it, but none against. So for the next reporter writing about raising the gas tax, here are some policy reasons against it.

Let me zero in on two points made by the Journal story.

First, it says, “elected officials from both parties are treading into the debate cautiously, framing the issue around improving highway safety and local economies by repairing a growing backlog of troubled roads and bridges.”

I don’t think that’s true about a “growing backlog.” In fact, our highways and bridges appear to be improving, not getting more “troubled.” Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) data show that of the nation’s 600,000 bridges, the share that is “structurally deficient” has fallen from 22 percent in 1992 to 10 percent in 2013. The share that is “functionally obsolete” has also fallen.

Meanwhile, the surface quality of the interstate highways has steadily improved. A study by Federal Reserve economists examining FHWA data found that “since the mid-1990s, our nation’s interstate highways have become indisputably smoother and less deteriorated.” And they concluded that the Interstate system is “in good shape relative to its past condition.”

The Journal says, “The federal levy … has stood at 18.4 cents a gallon since the first year of the Clinton administration, despite multiple proposals over the years to raise it. Over the past decade, Congress has approved higher spending for highway construction but hasn’t raised the tax to pay for it, creating periodic funding crises.”

It’s true that Congress has not raised the gas tax recently, but that’s because the American people have been consistently against it in polls. The problem is that Congress has gone ahead and jacked up spending anyway. So we don’t have a “funding” crisis, but a “spending” crisis.

Gas tax supporters say that it is time to raise the tax because it has not been raised in two decades. What they leave out of the story is that the gas tax rate more than quadrupled between 1982 and 1994 from 4 cents per gallon to 18.4 cents, as shown in the chart below the jump. Thus, looking at the whole period since 1982, federal gas tax revenues have risen at a robust annual average rate of 6.1 percent (based on Tax Foundation data). So, again, we have a spending crisis, not a funding crisis.

You Ought to Have A Look: Carbon Tax, Carbon Tax, Carbon Tax

You Ought to Have a Look is a feature from the Center for the Study of Science posted by Patrick J. Michaels and Paul C. (“Chip”) Knappenberger. While this section will feature all of the areas of interest that we are emphasizing, the prominence of the climate issue is driving a tremendous amount of web traffic. Here we post a few of the best in recent days, along with our color commentary.

As you may have guessed from the title of this post, this week we call attention to a few articles around the web examining the common sense behind a tax on carbon. It turns out there is none.

From time to time, there is a pitch made to conservatives that a “revenue neutral” carbon tax would be a win-win for everyone. It would help mitigate climate change while at the same time spur economic activity. Even if you don’t care about the former, you’re bound to like the latter. Or vice versa.

To try to win some new carbon tax recruits in the incoming Republican-led Congress, two recent high profile articles—one in the Washington Post by one-time Obama economic adviser Larry Summer and the other on National Review Online by the Hudson Institute’s Irwin Stelzer—make that argument, with embellishments.

If a carbon tax sounds too good to be true, then your intuition is correct.

Robert Murphy, an economist for the Institute for Energy Research, provides the technical details, collected from the economic literature, as to why the economic gains don’t actually come along with a carbon tax as they are being promised. In his National Review Online article “Taxing Carbon Won’t Help the Economy,” Murphy rebuts many of Stelzer’s claims. Ultimately, he delivers this sage advice: