Tag: energy

For Lower Gas Prices, Scrap the Jones Act

Drawing attention to rising gas prices this week, Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-New York) called for President Trump to ease pain at the pump by leveraging his relationships with key OPEC leaders as well as the presidential bully pulpit to exert pressure on oil companies. “These higher oil prices are translating directly to soaring gas prices, something we know disproportionately hurts middle- and lower-income people,” the senator added.

While his apparent belief that gas prices are determined more by the whims of corporate leaders than market forces is severely misguided, Sen. Schumer’s stated concern for the welfare of American consumers is welcome. Rather than rely upon President Trump’s ability to cajole foreign and corporate leaders into lowering the cost of gas, however, Sen. Schumer should introduce legislation to repeal the Jones Act.

Passed in 1920, the Jones Act mandates that ships which transport goods between domestic ports be U.S.-built, U.S.-flagged, and at least 75 percent U.S.-owned and crewed. Such strictures, in turn, raise transportation prices by eliminating access to cheaper options which do not meet these requirements. This cost increase reverberates throughout the economy, with few parts harder hit than the energy sector. Although the total cost of the distortions imposed upon this key industry is unknown, anecdotal evidence suggests that it is significant. Consider:

  • A 2014 Congressional Research Service report found that the purchase price of U.S.-built tankers is “about four times the price of foreign-built tankers, and U.S. crewing costs are several times those of foreign-flag ships.” Given such a cost structure it’s no surprise the report also found that shipping crude oil from the Gulf Coast to the Northeast on Jones Act-compliant tankers costs roughly three times greater than shipping the oil a longer distance to Canada on foreign-flagged ships ($5 to $6 per barrel versus $2 per barrel). Professor James Coleman of Southern Methodist University, meanwhile, points out that refineries in this part of the country “pay more than three times as much to ship oil from Texas rather than from West Africa or Saudi Arabia.” 
  • 1999 Government Accountability Report (GAO) report stated that, incredibly, the cost to ship oil from Alaska’s North Slope aboard foreign-crewed and built ships to the U.S. Virgin Islands—which is exempt from the Jones Act—was approximately three times less than to the Gulf Coast on Jones Act vessels ($2.35 per barrel versus $7.15 per barrel).
  • A 2013 GAO report noted that “representatives of airlines purchasing jet fuel for use in Puerto Rico told us that they typically import fuel to the island from foreign countries, such as Venezuela, rather than from Gulf Coast refineries.” This occurs, the report added, “because of difficulty in finding available Jones Act vessels to transport jet fuel and, when vessels are available, the high cost of such shipments compared to shipping the product from foreign countries.”
  • According to the CEO of the Overseas Shipping Group, a provider of energy transportation services, the cost of hiring a Jones Act ship for crude service is about three to four times higher than using a foreign-flagged vessel. 

This is but a sample of the costs imposed by the Jones Act, which drives up the price of gas and all manner of goods purchased by Americans. If Sen. Schumer and his fellow Democrats are serious about their desire to ease the financial burden placed on Americans by the rising cost of oil, scrapping or deeply reforming this nearly 100-year-old law would be an excellent place to start.

You Ought to Have a Look: Lukewarming the News

Scientific American, which is quite reliably alarmed by the prospects of climate change, showed signs of moderation this week in an article highlighting the work of the ecomodernists. The ecomodernists acknowledge that man-made climate change is occurring, but believe humans are already (and will continue) decoupling their well-being from environmental destruction—meaning every day that passes, human flourishing requires less pollution and resources. Though not libertarians, they are spot-on in regards to climate change being a minor overlay in a world increasingly insulated from the vagaries of nature due to market forces. The piece, titled Should We Chill Out about Global Warming?, is answered with an unqualified YES! from those of us at the Center for the Study of Science.

One of their ecomodernist peers, journalist Will Boisvert, recently pondered in a piece, “How bad will climate change be?” He has a voluminous response that’s worth a read, which he quickly summarizes as “Not very.” He went on to note what many of us have been saying for years—as long as there has been capital for innovation and civil order, we’ve been adapting to climate change, and will continue to do so. Boisvert neatly skewers horseman after horseman of the apocalypse—drought, hunger and heat, and notes our increasingly clean and efficient energy technology.

Statement on U.S. Withdrawal from the Paris Climate Treaty

In response to the U.S. withdrawing from the Paris climate treaty, I’ve issued the following statement:

The Paris climate treaty is climatically insignificant. EPA’s own models show it would only lower global warming by an inconsequential two-tenths of a degree Celsius by 2100. The cost to the U.S.—in the form of required payments of $100 billion per year from the developed to the developing world—is too great for the inconsequential results. These very real expenses will consume money that could be used by the private sector to fund innovative new technologies that are economically sound and can power our society with little pollution.

Because of our private investments in technological innovation, America leads the world in reducing carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. We did that without Paris, and we will continue our exemplary leadership without it.

While Paris will be with us for the near future as the process of withdrawing transpires, this is a step in the right direction. If you’d like to read more on the science behind Paris, take a look at this recent piece I wrote for The Hill, called “The Scientific Argument against the Paris Climate Agreement.”

Four Decades of Carter’s ‘Moral Equivalent of War’

Forty years ago tonight, President Jimmy Carter delivered his Address to the Nation on National Energy Policy, better known as the “Moral Equivalent of War” speech. Seated behind his ornate desk in the Oval Office and wearing a sober pinstriped suit, he offered a litany of dark predictions:

  • “The oil and natural gas we rely on for 75 percent of our energy are running out.”
  • “Unless profound changes are made to lower oil consumption, we now believe that early in the 1980s the world will be demanding more oil than it can produce.”
  • “World oil production can probably keep going up for another six or eight years. But some time in the 1980s it can’t go up much more. Demand will overtake production. We have no choice about that.”
  • “We can’t substantially increase our domestic production…”
  • “Within ten years we would not be able to import enough oil—from any country, at any acceptable price.”
  • “If we fail to act soon, we will face an economic, social and political crisis that will threaten our free institutions.”

You Ought to Have a Look: Platform Planks on Energy and the Environment

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.

With the end of Convention season mercifully upon us, we thought we ought to have a look at what the party platforms have to say about energy and the environment, with an eye on climate change policies in particular.

We’ll start out with the Democratic Party Platform.

The Democrats are of the mind that human-caused climate change is one of the major problems facing the country/world today, describing it as “an urgent threat and a defining challenge of our time.”

It’s unclear that the voters feel that way… although part of the Democrats strategy for this election seems to be to try to persuade them otherwise.

The Democratic platform is chock full of government actions that promise to initiate, broaden and extend the current set of rules, regulation, and orders seeking to reduce our emissions of carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases), largely by way of lessening (on the way to eliminating) our reliance on fossil fuels as our primary source of energy production. This collection of promised federal actions is large both in scope and number and includes everything from pursuing a carbon tax

You Ought to Have a Look: Our Energy Future, Science Regress, and a Greening Earth

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.

We’ll jump right into this week by highlighting an appearance by Manhattan Institute senior fellow Mark Mills on The Federalist’s Radio Hour. During his time on the show, Mills explains how the foreseeable future is going to play out when it comes to global energy production and why he says that even if you were concerned about climate change, “there really isn’t anything you can do about it.” 

Mills is one of the leading thinkers and analysts on energy systems, energy markets, and energy policy, bringing often overlooked and deeply-buried information to the forefront.

During his nearly hour-long radio segment, Mills discusses topics ranging from climate change, the world’s future energy mix, the role of technological advances, and energy policy as well as giving his opinions on both Bills Gates’ and Pope Francis’ take on all of the above. It is an entertaining and informative interview.

As a taste, here’s a transcript of a small segment:

In the life we live, and the world we live in, we have to do two things, one is deal with reality [current understanding of physics] and the moral consequences of that, and we can have aspirations. If the aspiration, which Bill Gates’ is, is to use fewer hydrocarbons, we need to support basic research.

We don’t subsidize stuff. The reason we don’t subsidize stuff and make energy more expensive, is because, for me, it is morally bankrupt to increase the cost of energy for most people in most of the world. Energy should be cheaper, not more expensive. We use energy to make our lives better. We use energy to make our lives safer. We use energy to make our lives more enjoyable. Everything that we care about in the world, safety, convenience, freedom, costs energy. [emphasis added]

Mark Mills’ sentiment closely matches that which Alex Epstein explained to Congress a few weeks back and that we highlighted in our last edition. 

If you can find any time to listen to a little or a lot of Mills’ full interview, you’ll probably find that what he says to make a lot of sense. Funny, though, how much of it seems to have escaped some folks.

Next up is an article in the current issue of First Things authored by Walter Wilson titled “Scientific Regress.” If you think the title is provocative, you ought to have a look at the rest of the piece beginning with the first line “The problem with ­science is that so much of it simply isn’t.” Instead, it reflects the results of a gamed system driven by pre-conceived ideas often emanating from the science/political establishment.

Will Senate Use Energy Bill to Weaken FHA Mortgages?

As I recall from my time in the Senate, there’s nothing like an energy bill to attract misguided proposals.  This week the Senate begins consideration of S.2012 — the Energy Policy Modernization Act of 2015.  Among the almost two hundred filed amendments is a proposal (Amendment #3042) from former real estate broker, Senator Isakson, to mandate that the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) reduce the quality of its loans in order to encourage more efficient energy use.

The two most concerning aspects of Amdt 3042 are 1) it would allow “estimated energy savings” to be used to increase the allowable debt-to-income (DTI) ratios for the loan and; 2) require “that the estimated energy savings…be added to the appraised value…”

These changes might not be so bad in the abstract but when combined with existing FHA standards, they set the borrower up for failure and leave the taxpayer holding the bag. Let’s recall that borrowers can already get a FHA mortgage at a loan to value (LTV) of 96.5%, and that’s assuming an accurate appraisal.  If borrowers were required to put 20 percent down, then this amendment would be a minor problem, but under existing standards, borrowers would mostly likely leave the table with an LTV over 100%, that is already underwater before they’ve even moved in.  Did Congress learn nothing from the crisis?

The increase in DTI might not matter if FHA did not already allow a DTI as high as 43% of income.  Under Amdt 3042 borrowers could easily leave the closing table devoting over half their income to their mortgage.  Again, did Congress learn nothing from the crisis?

To illustrate that the intent of the proposal is to have the taxpayer take more risk, Amdt 3042 actually prohibits FHA from imposing any standards that would offset this risk.  If these new loans perform worse, as one would expect, FHA cannot put them back to the lenders.   And let’s not forget FHA allows the borrower to have a credit history deep in the subprime range.  So you could have a subprime borrower, say FICO down to 580, LTV > 100% and DTI > 43% - what could go wrong?

If indeed energy savings actually increased the value of the home, that would be reflected in the price.  There would be no need to mandate such.  Not only does this proposal weaken FHA standards, and expose the taxpayer to greater risk, it takes us further down the path of an already politicized housing policy, where instead of relying on market prices, values are dictated by Soviet-style bureaucratic guesswork.

Pages