Topic: Energy and Environment

Keystone XL Pipeline: Enough Already!

Enough already!

Why is Congress, the President, or anyone else, still talking about the Keystone XL pipeline?

This project is so small in the grand scheme of anything it boggles the mind anyone outside of those directly involved in building and operating it gives it a second thought.

That a discussion of the pipeline is still consuming government resources some six years after it was originally proposed epitomizes the grand waste of time and money that characterizes the current Administration when it comes to anything it thinks causes dreaded global warming.

In this case, the fault lies squarely with President Obama.

He could have killed the pipeline years ago if he wanted. Or better yet, he could have approved the pipeline years ago and we would now be reaping the benefits of it in whatever form those benefits may have taken (choose your favorites from among the lists that likely includes jobs, tax revenues, lower gas prices, energy security, ally cooperation, etc.).

But he did neither.

You Ought to Have a Look: U.S./China Agreement, Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, Natural Variability

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.

The big news of the week was the “historic” (in President Obama’s words) climate agreement between the U.S. and China—but about the only “historic” thing about it was the hype the White House and environmental groups heaped upon it.  In actuality, there was very little new news. The emissions reduction pathway that Obama announced for the U.S. was not much different (actually a teense lower) than the one announced after the (failed) U.N. Copenhagen meeting in 2009, and China agreed to…well, it’s unclear to what they agreed. NBC News reported “China intends to begin to halt the rise in CO2 emissions by around the year 2030.” Try that line (inserting your own specific vice) on your significant other and see how it goes over.

A good article in Reuters by John Kemp nicely eschews the hype and looks more closely at the facts.  He opening paragraph reads:

Nov 12 (Reuters) - The joint statement by the United States and China on climate change, issued on Wednesday, is more important for its political and diplomatic symbolism than any practical effect it might have in reducing emissions.

Both Kemp’s article and our article on the announcement are worth having a look at to see what the agreement really entails, and its chances at success (spoiler alert: they aren’t good).

Another big news item this week—or at least it should have been—was the release of Alex Epstein’s remarkable book The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels. We can’t say enough good things about this book—and we try often! You may have seen our glowing review on these pages yesterday along with some provocative text provided by Alex that cuts to the basic premise of the book—that the societal pros of fossil fuel use far, far exceed the cons, and therefore, it is, well, immoral, to try to restrict their usage and further development. This week Alex also hosted a Reddit AMA (“ask me anything”) to allow internet savvy folks to interact with him directly as ask questions about his new book and his general way of thinking.  Alex entertained many interesting questions, for example:

Question:  What should be the role of government with respect to pollution? Should it ban pollution? Limit it? Tax it?

Answer: Good question, the subject of chapter 7 “Minimizing Risks and Side-Effects.” The basic principle is that we should think of it in terms of individual rights. At a certain threshold of emission someone is polluting your person or property and should be forbidden to do so. But certain threshold is important and contextual based on the state of technology. So in the 1800s people should have been allowed to use the coal plants they did but we shouldn’t today. If something is fundamentally necessary to human life it’s not pollution. There’s a lot of complexity in application but that’s the framework I use.

If you want to see all that transpired in this lively round of questioning is archived here.

And finally, our friend, the ever-informative Dr. Roy Spencer has a good post up over at his blog looking at what really are the biggest influences on the climate during the timescale of our lifetime. What does he find? Why natural variability, of course! He takes us through a couple of the most influential natural sources of variability and the possible drivers behind them. Here is some insight from Roy:

But statistics aren’t enough. Since we understand that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and should cause some warming, but we don’t understand natural climate cycles, scientists only look where the streetlight of government funding illuminates the problem: CO2.

What complicates policymaking even further is that what motivates public perceptions and thus decision makers the most are weather events. Hurricane Sandy. A snowy winter. We end up blaming these on the only thing we thing we think we understand — increasing CO2 should cause some change, so it must be responsible for all of the change we see…

To the extent that human-caused warming is occurring, I am increasingly convinced it is a largely benign — and possibly beneficial — needle lost in the haystack of Mother Nature’s natural climate gyrations.

You ought to have a look at the rest of Roy’s article, which can be found here.

The One Statistic Climate Catastrophists Don’t Want You to Know

Alex Epstein’s long-anticipated book, The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, published by Penguin, comes out today! I reviewed it as, “simply the best popular-market book about climate, environmental policy, and energy that I have read.  Laymen and experts alike will be boggled by Epstein’s clarity.”

Alex recently sent us a brief essay based upon material in the book. Alex Epstein is President and Founder of the Center for Industrial Progress—an organization sowing the seeds of energy enthusiasm to counter the tide of climate alarmism. We asked Alex to share a few thoughts with our readers here at Cato; find them below.

If you are in Washington, you might want to meet Alex. He will be giving a Hill Briefing in B-369 Rayburn at 9am on Friday, November 21.


If you ever get asked the vague but morally-charged question “Do you believe in climate change?” someone is trying to put something over on you.

Climate change is a constant of nature and everyone agrees that fossil fuels have some impact on our naturally variable, volatile, and often vicious climate.

The question is whether it will have a catastrophic impact—one so bad it justifies restricting the only practical way to get energy in the foreseeable future to the 3 billion people who have next to none of it: fossil fuels. (No country relies on the sun and wind for energy, but rich countries can afford to pay tens or hundreds of billions to install and accommodate allegedly virtuous wind turbines and solar panels on their grids.)

The real issue is climate catastrophe. I’m not a climate-change skeptic. I’m a climate catastrophe skeptic—and here’s one graph that shows why you should be, too.

No, it’s not showing temperatures have gone up half a degree in the 80 years we’ve used a lot of fossil fuels, which is barely more than they went up the prior 80 years. Nor does it show temperatures have flattened in the past eighteen years—while  the world’s leading climate catastrophists predicted dramatic, accelerating, runaway warming. Dr. James Hansen predicted that temperatures would increase between two-and-a-half and five degrees in 20 years!

Okay, I’ll show that graph, too—here it is:

Nothing New, as China “Intends” to Cap Emissions

Most every paper in the country is trumpeting today that China has finally agreed to limit its emissions of carbon dioxide, gutting the principal objection of people opposed to unilateral and expensive reductions in ours. 

Too bad it’s not true.

According to the official pronouncement, all China said was that they “intend” to cap their emissions “around 2030”. Anything new here?  In November, 2009, prior to the (failed) UN climate fest in Copenhagen, they announced their “intention” to reduce their emissions per unit economic output (called “carbon intensity”)  by 40-45% by 2020. Since then, things haven’t appreciably changed—so they now have five years to execute this huge drop, which isn’t going to happen.

The road to global warming is paved with China’s good “intentions”.

We also note that they “intend” to derive 20 per cent of their energy from non-carbon based sources by 2030. No doubt working late into last night (as did we; this story broke at 10:30), the estimable Roger Pielke, Jr., has already calculated that this means that the Chinese will have to put the equivalent of one nuclear power plant per week on line between now and then. As Roger wryly noted, “some people take it seriously”.

Don’t. But we should take seriously President Obama’s announcement that the US will double its scheduled emissions reductions by 2025. Thanks to the 2007 Supreme Court (5-4) decision that incredulously said that the 1992 Clean Air Act Amendments gave the President the power to command and control virtually our entire energy economy, he indeed can do what he just said.

It would take an act of Congress to prevent him, an act that would most certainly be vetoed, without the necessary two-thirds majority to override.

One might think that he would care about what the voters think—but that’s not the case. A careful read of election returns reveals that the cap-and-trade, and not health care, cost his party control of the House in 2010, and, in 2014, the epicenter of electoral carnage was in the coal mining regions of Kentucky and West Virginia, costing his party the Senate.

While China has good “intentions” we get real “unemployment”. Such a deal!

Climate, Agriculture, and the Dead Zone

Okay, here’s how much of what calls itself science works today:

1) Find a change in something

2) Say it could be caused by global warming

3) Get more funding

4) Let people ask critical questions

5) Get tenure to protect you from that criticism

Today’s textbook example comes from the Washington Post, in an article, “Large ‘dead zones’, oxygen depeleted water, likely because of climate change”.

This is bad. According to The Post, the authors of newly minted article in Global Change Biology, say,

As global temperatures warm, they will create conditions such as rain [!], wind and sea-level rise that will cause dead zones throughout the world to intensify and grow…

Dead zones are (sometimes) large regions of hypoxic seawater that appear every summer. Because of their seasonality, obviously global warming is making them worse, right? (see 2) above) Or is it due to the fact that, on the average, humans are flushing more agricultural nitrates into the ocean as we produce ever more food? So the nitrates fertilize the ocean, algae bloom and die, bacteria decompose them and in the process, water becomes hypoxic, and fish die.

Ivanpah: Time to End the Subsidies

Ivanpah in California is the world’s largest solar project. The project is owned by Google and NRG Energy, and is heavily subsidized by taxpayers. Ivanpah originally received a $1.6 billion loan from the Department of Energy (DOE) in 2011. Now the company is asking for another government subsidy to pay off its original loan.

Ivanpah’s loan guarantee came from the Section 1705 program created by the 2009 stimulus law. Section 1705 provided up to $18 billion in loan guarantees to “certain renewable energy systems, electric power transmission systems and leading-edge biofuels.” The program was temporary, with loans available until the end of fiscal year 2011. Unlike previous energy loan guarantee programs, Congress even provided subsidies to borrowers to pay the fees on loans.. As a consequence, firms were able to get a federal loan guarantee without any direct expenditure, providing a large incentive for firms to take advantage. By the end of the Section 1705 program in September 2011, DOE approved 27 projects totaling $14.5 billion.

Business failures among these loan recipients were common, the most famous being Solyndra. Solyndra, a solar-panel manufacturer, received a $535 million loan guarantee before filing bankruptcy. An analysis by the Reason Foundation found that 10 of the 27 recipients under Section 1705 experienced some sort of financial trouble.

The survival of Ivanpah is still up in the air. The project came online in December 2013. From January to August 2014, the project generated just one quarter of its predicted amount of electricity.

In February, the company asked DOE for permission to delay payments on its loan. According to the Wall Street Journal, DOE gave Ivanpah a one-year extension on the $132 million first payment. A second subcomponent—the loan is divided among three subcomponents—delayed a June payment of $159 million to December.

Now, Ivanpah is asking for $539 million in cash from the federal government. This time, Ivanpah is targeting a Department of Treasury tax credit program that reimburses renewable energy projects for up to 30 percent of project costs.

Geo-Engineering the Climate? A Geo-Bad Idea.

The front page of yesterday’s New York Times included the beginning of a long article about geoengineering—in this case, as it applies to purposeful activities aimed at changing the earth’s climate at a large scale. Why on earth would anyone even think of doing something like that? Why to avoid catastrophic global warming, of course!

Thankfully, most signs point to only a modest global temperature increase resulting from our fossil fuel usage—a rise that will be readily adapted to and which actually may work out to be more beneficial than detrimental. Thankfully, we say, because geoengineering schemes seem like really bad ideas full of nasty consequences (unintentional and otherwise) and we are glad that no one is seriously entertaining them.

Most folks who spend much time critically thinking about geoengineering the climate arrive at the same conclusion.