The EPA is Poisoning People while Fracking is making People’s lives Better

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 5th, 2014

Week in Review

There have been a lot of movies showing how fracking is polluting our groundwater.  Giving people cancer.  Causing fire to blow out of people’s water faucets.  Makers of movies appear on The Daily Show and The Colbert Report talking about how horrible and dangerous fracking is.  So the evils of fracking are all around us.  But, strangely, these dangers are conspicuous by their absence in one area.  Actual news stories.

We hear about how global warming is getting worse.  We hear example after example of how Republicans hate the poor and women and want to take away health insurance from everyone.  We are bombarded with news about how the rich aren’t paying their fair share and how Republicans are trying to buy elections.  But we don’t see reporters filming fire shooting out of a water faucet.  And we don’t see the CDC in fracking areas responding to soaring cancer rates.  Or fracking fields being turned into superfund cleanup sites.

It’s odd because when Malaysian Airways Flight 370 went missing 4 weeks ago CNN covered the missing airplane 24/7.  Even though they had nothing to report.  They just brought in experts (and a physic) and theorized about what might have happened.  The other news channels covered the non-news with nearly the same fervor as CNN.  So you would think that if fracking was causing fire to shoot out of water faucets and was giving everyone cancer they would be covering that 24/7.  For most of these news channels are liberal.  And liberals hate fracking.  But they don’t go to North Dakota to report the abject misery fracking has brought them.  Probably because they don’t want to show the economic boom going on in North Dakota.  Where people are going to for jobs.  Where the unemployment rate there (2.6% as of February 2014) is the lowest in the nation.  Perhaps that’s why they don’t report the abject misery fracking is causing in North Dakota.  Because there is none.

So if the media isn’t in North Dakota is the government?  Is the EPA documenting the abject misery fracking is causing the good people of North Dakota?  No.  Instead, they’re purposely trying to give people cancer (see What’s more dangerous to your health than fracking? The EPA, apparently by Ashe Schow posted 4/2/2014 on the Washington Examiner).

An EPA inspector general’s report found that the agency did obtain approval to conduct five “human research studies” exposing “81 human study subjects to” toxic pollutants including diesel exhaust…

So the EPA asked people to expose themselves to dangerous pollutants — some at levels 50 times greater than what is safe — but didn’t tell them about the dangers.

Why would the EPA, which supposedly cares so much about the public’s health, do this, especially to people who already had health problems?

To justify more regulations and funding, of course.

They are desperately trying to kill people by exposing them to something they can later call a toxic pollutant.  So they can “justify more regulations and funding.”  And they will tell the people they kill, “Fear not, you shall not have died in vain.  Your horrible death will bring about the greatest kind of good there is.  It will enable us to expand the size of the federal government.  Allowing it to reach further into your lives.  Well, not yours per se because you’ll be dead.  Thanks to us.  But other people will know the joy of having the federal government intruding further into their private lives.  Until one day there are no more private lives.”

This is what the federal government thinks is good.  Not a 2.6% unemployment rate.  Like they have in North Dakota.  Thanks to fracking.  Which the people living there don’t seem to mind.  As the people moving there don’t seem to mind.  Interestingly, the blue states with higher concentrations of liberals aren’t enjoying such economic prosperity.   The unemployment rate in New York is 6.8%.  In Illinois it’s 8.7%.  And in California it’s 8%.  So they’re doing something right in North Dakota.  And something very wrong in New York, Illinois and California.  Perhaps committing too many resources on liberal policies.  Instead of creating an economic climate that will give people the thing they want most.  A job.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

People beg the EPA to Waive their Ethanol Mandate to lower Food Prices but the EPA Refuses

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 18th, 2012

Week in Review

People suffering from the high price of corn beg the EPA to waive the ethanol mandate.  To use corn for food.  And not for fuel.  To help hungry children in the US.  And around the world.  Whose parents have to pay higher and higher food prices thanks to a reduced corn crop thanks to those droughts this past summer.  The EPA’s response?  Kids are fat enough already and could stand to lose a few pounds.  Figuratively, of course (see EPA rejects request to waive requirements for corn-based ethanol by David Shepardson posted 11/16/2012 on The Detroit News).

The Environmental Protection Agency on Friday rejected a request from eight governors and nearly 200 members of Congress to waive requirements for the use of corn-based ethanol in the nation’s 240 million vehicles in the wake of this summer’s severe drought.

The move is a victory for corn farmers that have seen prices jump by 400 percent in recent years, but a loss for pork and beef producers who have seen the price of feed jump…

The EPA said it has not found evidence to support a finding of severe “economic harm” that would warrant granting a waiver of the Renewable Fuels Standard.

Can you imagine gasoline prices rising 400% and the government saying they see no economic harm in that?  Can you imagine prescriptions prices rising 400% and the government saying they see no economic harm in that?  Can you imagine the cost of health insurance rising 400% and the government saying they see no economic harm in that?  Of course you can’t.  So why do they not see harm in a 400% rise in corn prices?  Could it be because the ethanol lobby supports Democrat candidates and their environmental policies?  And higher corn prices mean more generous campaign donations?  Perhaps.

“We recognize that this year’s drought has created hardship in some sectors of the economy, particularly for livestock producers,” said Gina McCarthy, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation. “But our extensive analysis makes clear that congressional requirements for a waiver have not been met and that waiving the RFS will have little, if any, impact…”

In 2011, nearly half the corn grown in the U.S. was diverted to ethanol production to meet the RFS, critics say…

Food producers — including the makers of frozen food and restaurant chains — have criticized the mandates, saying it raises food prices…

The American Coalition for Ethanol praised the decision by the EPA…

The Michigan Farm Bureau had opposed granting the waiver, saying it doesn’t believe keeping the requirements in place “would severely harm the economy of Michigan at this time.” But Michigan poultry and livestock producers are affected by higher corn prices.

The governors of Maryland and Delaware, also home to poultry producers, told the EPA in October that without a waiver they would face “the loss of thousands jobs.” North Carolina, New Mexico, Georgia, Texas, Virginia, Utah and Wyoming also had asked EPA to waive the requirements.

The EPA conducted several economic analyses and concluded that on average waiving the mandate would reduce corn prices by 1 percent. EPA also said waiving the mandate would not affect household energy costs.

The Democrats talked a lot about arithmetic during the 2012 campaign.  Saying that simple arithmetic proved that they should raise tax rates on rich people.  Because collecting another 5% or so from high income earners would help balance the budget.  Even though we have trillion dollar deficits.  And the proposed tax rate hikes would bring in nowhere near a trillion dollars.  So it would appear the Democrats are arithmetically challenged.  Which probably explains why they say doubling the corn crop (by eliminating the methanol mandate) will only lower corn prices by 1%.  When doubling the supply of any other commodity in the world would cause the price to collapse.

These are the same people that place import tariffs on foreign made goods to restrict supplies to keep domestic prices high.  These are the same people that accuse other nations of anti-dumping violations for flooding the market with their goods.  Which lowers domestic prices.  So these people seem to believe that increasing supply will lower prices.   Except when it comes to corn.  Even if you double the size of the corn crop.  Amazing.

Of course, it’s about the money.  The corn and ethanol producers are getting rich.  Who are only getting rich because of their friends in government.  Which is the definition of crony capitalism.  Or corruption.  The government interferes with market forces.  So their friends and supporters can get rich.  And share that wealth with their friends in government.

And while the crony capitalists are getting rich the American consumer gets poorer.  As they pay more for corn, beef, pork, chicken, eggs, milk, cheese, etc.  Families have to cut back on their grocery budgets.  And cut back on going out.  Because they have less disposable income.  And restaurants have to raise their prices because of the increase in their food costs.  But this is okay as far as the EPA is concerned.  As they put big money political contributions ahead of American families.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

President Obama’s EPA Policies are Causing High Food Prices and Global Hunger

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 18th, 2012

Week in Review

President Obama says he cares for poor people.  But his actions clearly show that unless there’s something in it for him he doesn’t care for poor people.  Even if they are going hungry (see White House offers drought relief, feels heat to waive ethanol mandate by John W. Schoen, NBC News, posted 8/13/2012 on Economy Watch).

President Barack Obama announced emergency measures Monday to ease the impact of the worst drought in half a century, but stopped short of waiving the government’s requirement that a large portion of the now-shriveled corn crop be diverted to make ethanol…

As the lowest yields in nearly two decades squeeze feed supplies, livestock producers are asking the government to waive a five-year-old requirement that gasoline sold in the U.S. contain roughly 9 percent ethanol. Because most ethanol in the U.S. is made from corn, roughly 40 percent of the corn crop, in a good year, is purchased by the biofuel industry…

With the rest of the world’s food chain already strained, the competition for each kernel of corn is going global. Last week, a United Nations food index jumped 6 percent, and the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization warned against the kind of export bans, tariffs and buying binges that worsened the price surge four years ago. The U.N. food agency stepped up the pressure on the U.S. to ease its biofuel policies…

Ethanol production had already begun slowing before this summer’s drought, as fuel suppliers have approached the limit of demand for the biofuel. Though higher concentrations are sold in a few stations, most gasoline formulated with ethanol is limited to a 10 percent blend.

Cutting production, though, could produce a bigger political backlash from another key contingency in an election year: American drivers. Since other additives have been phased out over the past five years, gasoline refiners have overhauled their plants and rely on ethanol to produce high-octane fuel that burns cleanly enough to meet air quality standards.

Save the planet.  Kill the people.

You know food prices are rising when the UN is asking the U.S. to ease its biofuel policies.  These are, after all, the same people pushing for economy-destroying environmental policies on the entire world.  Particularly on the advanced economies of the world.  So this food crisis is serious.  Which is why they are urging President Obama to stop using 40% of the corn crop for fuel.  And to use this food as food instead.  To save starving children in the less economically advanced parts of the world.  But President Obama’s answer?  “No.”  Why?  Does he not care for the starving children of the world?  Apparently not.  For he apparently cares more about the campaign donations from the ethanol lobby.

President Obama has shown he has no problem using executive orders to overrule the Constitution.  So he clearly could use his executive powers to change policies he has the legal authority to change.  Such as relaxing his EPA requirements during this hot and dry summer.  Let the cars pollute for a year until this crisis ends.  Then he can re-cripple the economy with his punishing EPA requirements later.  He can do it by executive order.  But he won’t.  Because the ethanol lobby is too well connected.  Besides a lot of his rich Hollywood contributors are all environmentalists who will never have a problem putting food on their tables.  But they will have a problem putting campaign cash on President Obama’s table if he rescinds any environmental policies.  So people will starve.  So the president can please his cash-contributing friends.

Never before has one man caused so much suffering to so many for the benefit of so few.  Well, actually, there have been a lot of people who have done this.  But they were usually warmongering dictators.  Not the leader of the free world.  Which makes this especially sad.  Unlike his republican rival for the presidency this fall, our president clearly takes care of his rich friends while poor people suffer in the United States from high food prices.  And poorer people throughout the world suffer hunger.  Because of President Obama’s EPA policies.  Something that even the UN says are harmful to poor people everywhere.  And is begging the president to stop willfully hurting these people.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Environmentalists don’t give a whit about Human Happiness

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 3rd, 2011

Environmentalists just don’t like an Advanced Human Race

Environmentalism is a zero-sum game.  Save the planet.  Kill man.  Either quickly by making cars lighter to be more fuel efficient.  Making them less survivable in an accident.  Or over time by turning the hands of time back.  To a time where there weren’t factories pumping pollution in the air.  Before we used coal to fire our power plants.  Or before we used oil to unleash economic activity.  And exploded our standard of living.

No.  The environmentalist would rather we sit in our own filth.  Subsist only on home-grown vegetables.  And be born, live, work and die within a mile of each other.  They don’t want anything man-made wafting into the atmosphere.  And they don’t want anything pumped from underground.  Or pumped over ground for that matter (see Stung by Obama, Environmentalists Weigh Options by Leslie Kaufman posted 9/3/2011 on The New York Times).

In late August, the State Department gave a crucial go-ahead on a controversial pipeline to bring tar sands oil from Canada to the Gulf Coast. Then on Friday, leading into the holiday weekend, the Obama administration announced without warning that it was walking away from stricter ozone pollution standards that it had been promising for three years and instead sticking with Bush-era standards.

John D. Walke, clean air director of the Natural Resources Defense Council, an advocacy group based in New York, likened the ozone decision to a “bomb being dropped.”

Mr. Walke and representatives of other environmental groups saw the president’s actions as brazen political sellouts to business interests and the Republican Party, which regards environmental regulations as job killers and a brick wall to economic recovery.

And the environmentalists are not pleased.  In fact, they are furious.  They don’t care about double-dip recessions.  Or even depressions.  They don’t care if people live in caves where they eat their vegetables in one corner.  And poop in another.  They just don’t like an advanced human race.

Most People want the Comforts of an Advanced Human Race

Of course, this presents a bit of a problem for President Obama.  These hardcore environmentalists are but a sliver of the population.  But it’s one of many slivers the Democrats need.  It’s the aggregate of these fringe groups that have electoral weight.  Lose a couple and you may simply lose the next election.

The majority of people, though, want the comforts of an advanced human race.  And they vote, too.  Especially those with jobs.  Real jobs.  In the private sector.  The vast majority of which are non-union.  So these people don’t have money to burn.  Like government workers.  The economy is important to them.  Because they want affordable gas for their cars.  They enjoy red meat.  Taking daily showers.  And the pleasures of a luxurious toilet paper.  In other words, they are not environmentalists.  They’re human.  Proud of it.  And they want to keep their jobs.

So far the Obama policies have hurt the economy.  Not helped it.  Stopping the pipeline deal would have only pushed gas prices higher.  Once the depression was over, of course.  The ozone pollution standards, on the other hand, would have made it difficult to get a job.  And left the nation in a permanent economic decline. 

EPA Regulations Equal no New Jobs and higher Consumer Costs

So how bad were these ozone standards?  Pretty bad (see Obama Postpones New Ozone Standards, Has More Work to Do by Nicolas Loris posted 9/2/2011 on Heritage).

This is an important victory for businesses as well as the additional 565 U.S. counties that would have been pushed into non-attainment status and suffered economically as a result.

The EPA’s regulatory overreach on this one rule would have destroyed 7.3 million jobs and nearly $700 billion in economic activity by 2020, and the EPA significantly overestimated the purported health benefits from a lower standard.

That’s an interesting number.  That $700 billion.  This was the cost of extending the Bush tax cuts just for high-income earners.  The Left was angry when Obama extended those tax cuts.  But he said he had to.  Because the economy was too fragile to pull $700 billion out of it.  And here is one EPA standard that will cost the economy that same amount.  Can you imagine the cost of all the other EPA standards?  Perhaps this is the reason why there is no economic recovery.  Too many costly regulations for business to comply with.  For they surely aren’t incentives to expand business.

The costs for states to comply with a tightened ozone standard would have been substantial. These federal mandates for more strict ozone pollution can discourage companies from expanding, and counties that do not meet attainment measures could have lost federal transit funding. As Heritage Visiting Fellow Andrew Grossman writes:

“The economic consequences of non-attainment are severe. New and modified sources—factories, power plants, and the like—in non-attainment areas must employ costly emissions control technologies and offset emissions by taking other industrial capacity offline, directly costing jobs. At best, this drives up the cost of development and discourages businesses from expanding. At worst, it is a near prohibition on new industry. And where businesses are unable to relocate—such as is often the case with utilities—the result is higher costs for consumers.”

EPA regulations equal no new jobs.  And higher consumer costs.  For what?

From 1980 to 2005, when levels of ozone and other pollutants fell in the United States, the number of asthmatics increased by 75 percent. In fact, some of the lowest asthma rates in the world are found in highly polluted developing countries in the former Soviet Union, while countries in Western Europe have considerably higher asthma rates and relatively lower levels of air pollution.

What is clear and well established, however, is that improved economic well-being means that people are healthier and live longer. A tighter ozone rule would slow economic growth, reducing economic well-being.

Nothing, apparently.  They want to hammer businesses with these new costly regulations just to feel good.  For history has shown that there are other contributing factors to asthma.  Perhaps it’s Dr. Spock‘s fault.  For there is ample evidence now that bottle-fed babies develop more allergies.  Perhaps this is the cause.  And not the clean ‘dirty’ air of 1980-2005.

We die Young and the Earth stays Pretty

For a polluted planet the earth is pretty damn clean.  And healthy.  We’re living longer.  And the more improved economically we get the longer we live.  This was the core argument for giving us Obamacare.  The richest nation in the world should be able to provide health care to all.  So even the Left must see the benefits of a booming economy.  It buys them all the things they want.  While other people pay for it.

But the environmentalists don’t care.  Not the hardcore ones.  They’d prefer to see the human race regress back to a simpler time.  When we were just beginning to walk upright.  Before we spoiled Mother Nature.  With all of our thinking.  

And if that means living to a ripe old age of only 30, so be it.  The less we live the less damage we can do.  We die young.  And the earth stays pretty.  Nothing would make them happier.  Ending human happiness.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Bernanke can’t Help this Bad Economy and Washington only Exasperates our Problems with their Regulatory Zeal

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 26th, 2011

Congressional Action thus far has Scared the Bejesus out of Households and Businesses

All eyes were on Jackson Hole, Wyoming.  Ben Bernanke was giving a much anticipated speech.  And the markets waited with bated breath.  They’re not bated anymore (see Bernanke pledges Fed support, but notes limits by Chris Isidore posted 8/26/2011 on CNNMoney).

“Most of the economic policies that support robust economic growth in the long run are outside the province of the central bank,” he said.

And he warned that when Congress weighs future deficit reduction plans, it should be careful to not hurt the economy in the short-term. They “should not…disregard the fragility of the current economic recovery.”

He said there needs to be a better way of Congress making decisions on taxes and spending. And he said a repeat of the this summer’s contentious debate over raising the debt ceiling would likely hurt the economy.

“It is difficult to judge by how much these developments have affected economic activity thus far,” he said about the threat of default and the downgrade of the U.S. credit rating. “But there seems little doubt that they have hurt household and business confidence and that they pose ongoing risks to growth.”

The economy has big problems.  Problems, though, that will take more than monetary policy to fix.  But when Congress addresses these fiscal issues they should be very careful not to damage the fragile economic recovery.  Because thus far their words and actions have only been scaring the bejesus out of households and businesses.

Businesses Prefer Stability and Responsible Government that doesn’t Govern Against their Interests

Households and businesses are so frightened of what the future holds that they are sitting on their money (see Key Passages From Bernanke’s Jackson Hole Remark by David Wessel posted 8/26/2011 on The Wall Street Journal).

“Financial stress has been and continues to be a significant drag on the recovery, both here and abroad. Bouts of sharp volatility and risk aversion in markets have recently re-emerged in reaction to concerns about both European sovereign debts and developments related to the U.S. fiscal situation…. It is difficult to judge by how much these developments have affected economic activity thus far, but there seems little doubt that they have hurt household and business confidence and that they pose ongoing risks to growth.”

Uncertainty.  The greatest fear of business.  Because you can’t plan uncertainty.  Because it is uncertain.  Businesses prefer stability.  Households, too.  That, and responsible government.  One that doesn’t govern against their interests.

The Department of Energy is going to raise our Electric Bills by 35%  

And so far government hasn’t been delivering what the households and businesses want (see US breaks ground on first industrial-scale carbon capture project by staff of Business Green, part of the Guardian Environment Network guardian.co.uk, posted 8/26/2011 on the Guardian).

The US government’s carbon capture and storage (CCS) efforts stepped up a gear this week, with the start of construction on the government’s first industrial-scale scheme and funds worth $41m set aside for another 16 research projects.

Work on the plant in Decatur, Illinois, which received $141m of public money and another $66.5m from private sector sources, started just a few weeks after American Electric Power abandoned plans to build its $668m CCS facility.

Is this responsible government?  After record deficits caused the first downgrade of U.S. sovereign debt ever should the government still be spending money on bad green investments?  How do I know this is a bad green investment?  Simple.  The private sector will only invest 32% of its total costs.  The taxpayers are picking up the other 68%.

The DoE said its selection yesterday of 16 projects across 13 states to share $41m funding over three years would further the aim.

Each project will focus on developing technologies capable of capturing at least 90% of CO2 produced, as well as reducing the added costs at power plants to no more than a 35% increase in the cost of electricity produced.

Oh, and the Department of Energy is only going to raise our electric bills by 35%.  So not only do the taxpayers have to pay for the construction of this plant, our electric bills will increase afterwards.  For both households.  And businesses.  Which will be a further drag on the economy.  Which won’t make Ben Bernanke happy.

Killing Businesses with Regulatory Compliance Costs

But it gets worse.  The EPA is causing uncertainty for American businesses.  And killing them with compliance costs.  So much so that John Boehner wrote a letter to President Obama demanding a tally of his punishing regulations (see Five EPA rules that will cost more than $1 billion by Conn Carroll posted 8/26/2011 on The Washington Examiner).

Boehner specifically mentions one regulation that “will cost our economy as much as $90 billion per year. That rule, titled “Reconsideration of the 2008 Ozone Primary and Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards” (aka “The Ozone Rule), is the biggest drag on growth that the EPA has formally proposed so far. The EPA is also working on global warming regulations that are sure to cost much more, but those proposals have not been published yet.

The EPA has published at least four other proposed regulations, however, that would inflict costs on the U.S. economy over or near $1 billion a year. These cost estimates are all from the EPA’s own numbers…

Here’s a chart summarizing the 5 regulations in this article:

 

And this is only 5 of them.  Imagine if you add them up in total.  Could it be holding back businesses?  Perhaps.  I mean, would you invest in anything new knowing billions of dollars of compliance costs were coming your way?  I wouldn’t.

Perhaps the Problem with the Bad Economy is the People trying to Fix It

Bernanke is right.  You can’t fix this stuff with monetary policy.  When you’re attacking American households and businesses like this, no one is going to borrow any money to invest.  No matter how cheap it is.

Furthermore, all of these costs are going to be passed onto the American consumer.  They always are.  So this means consumers will have less disposable income.  Which means this will be a further drag on the economy.  And less economic activity means less tax revenue.  Which takes us back to those growing deficits.  They ain’t going away.

Perhaps the problem with the bad economy isn’t due to a lack of demand as the Keynesians say.  Perhaps the problem is with the people trying to fix it.  And there is no quick solution to that problem.  As the 2012 election is still more than a year away.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Save the Economy or Save the Planet, it’s One or the Other

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 5th, 2011

Pushing back against the EPA’s Assault against Business

With the economy in the toilet where it will probably remain for a long time to come, a lot of people have given up on environmentalism.  They take a look around them and see that things look pretty good.  Environmental-wise.  In fact, it’s a regular paradise compared to all the environmentalists’ alarmist predictions from a decade or two ago.  Which look rather silly today.  Children in the UK will no longer know what snow is.  The overwhelming stench of dead fish decaying on America’s beaches (killed by warming ocean temperatures).  Flooded coastal areas due to melting of Arctic ice.  None of it happened as predicted.  We got all worked up over nothing.  That’s why environmentalism is more of a young person’s game.  Because after you lived through 20-30 years of failed predictions, you tend to grow a little skeptical.  Especially during times of high unemployment.

That’s why a lot of people don’t give a rat’s rear end about global warming now.  They want a job.  And the way they see it, all this environmentalist nonsense is killing the job market.  And the Republican-controlled House they’re starting to push back on the job killer itself.  The EPA (see Soaring emissions posted 6/2/2011 on The Economist).

The Republicans’ chief concern is the EPA’s authority, as affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2007, to regulate emissions of greenhouse gases. But more broadly they worry that the EPA is constantly tightening restrictions on pollution, at ever higher cost to business but with diminishing returns in terms of public health. They point to a slew of new rules about industrial boilers, cooling water at power plants, the disposal of coal ash, and emissions of mercury, ozone and other chemicals from smokestacks, which cumulatively, they say, will have a crippling effect on power generation and other industries. “Even God,” says Joe Barton, a Republican congressman, “couldn’t meet some of the ozone standards.”

…The Republican leadership in the House has accused the administration of plotting to raise the price of energy through onerous regulation, in an effort to promote otherwise uncompetitive green technologies. It wants the EPA to give more weight to the impact on the economy and jobs when drawing up future rules.

The Obama administration has.  And is.  Trying to raise the price of ‘cheap’ energy to promote their green energy initiatives.  It’s on record they want gasoline to cost as much in the U.S. as it does in Europe (as in $8/gallon).  To make more costly and shorter-range electric cars easier to sell.  And they want to do the same with cheap fossil fuel-produced electricity.  To make more costly and less reliable wind and solar generated electricity easier to sell.

EPA officials appear baffled by this barrage of hostility… The agency, they say, already conducts cost-benefit analyses of all important regulations, in addition to submitting them for expert review and public comment. Every dollar spent on pollution controls mandated by the Clean Air Act, including the ozone restrictions that Mr Barton is complaining about, will bring $30 in benefits to public health, the EPA reckons.

Expert review and comment?  By who?  It certainly isn’t the businesses affected by their regulations.  Who know exactly the costs their regulations will add.  No, they can’t be the experts.  Not when they are protesting the onerous costs these regulations are adding.

And the $30 in benefits for every dollar spent on pollution controls is a specious argument.  No one can know this.  It’s made up math based on fallacious assumptions and unrealistic projections.  Much like the math they used some 2-3 decades ago when they made all those alarmist global warming predictions that never came true.

Saving the Trees but Killing the Planet

We were saving the trees going to a paperless world thanks to the Internet.  Little did we know that we were killing the planet by saving those trees (see Could the Net be killing the planet one web search at a time? by Alex Roslin, for Post Media News, posted 6/3/2011 on The Vancouver Sun).

Ironically, despite the web’s green promise, this explosion of data has turned the Internet into one of the planet’s fastest-growing sources of carbon emissions. The Internet now consumes two to three per cent of the world’s electricity…

The bulk of all this energy is gobbled up by a fast-growing network of huge “server farms” or data centres that form the backbone of the Internet. They are hush-hush facilities, some the size of five Wal-Marts, packed from floor to ceiling with tens of thousands of computers…

All those computers have a voracious appetite for energy, especially for cooling equipment to prevent overheating.

This means that every time you do an Internet search you’re releasing polluting carbon into the atmosphere.  Because the majority of our cheap and reliable electricity is produced with cheap and reliable fossil fuels.  And some of these server farms are fossil fuel beasts with voracious appetites.

Apple’s mega-facility is part of a cluster of gigantic new data centres coming on line in North Carolina that are powered largely by cheap and highly polluting coal power. Google has a 44,000-square-metre data centre in the state that eventually will consume an estimated 60 to 100 MW. Facebook has a 28,000-square-metre facility under construction there that will eat up 40 MW.

Greenpeace calls the three facilities “North Carolina’s dirty data triangle.” Coal, it says, is the most polluting of all fossil fuels and the world’s single largest source of greenhouse gas emissions.

“The technologies of the 21st century are still largely powered by the dirty coal power of the past,” the environmental group said in a report card on the IT sector in April, titled How Dirty is Your Power?

There is a reason why we use so much coal.  And it’s not because we hate the planet.

North Carolina offers industrial customers one of the lowest electricity rates in the U.S. — 5.8 cents per kilowatt hour, versus the U.S. average of 6.7 cents.

It just so happens that the state’s electricity is also some of the dirtiest in the country. Nearly two-thirds of the state’s electricity comes from coal.

And here is the tradeoff between global warming and jobs.  Coal is dirty but cheap.  Which keeps electricity costs down.  Which attracts business.  Like in North Carolina.  Other locations lost these new jobs because their environmental policies made energy more expensive in those locations.

The real solution, [Bill St. Arnaud, an engineer and green IT consultant in Ottawa] said, is for governments to impose measures like carbon taxes and emissions caps that make dirty energy less attractive financially.

“The planet is warming up, and it’s going to get very bad. We need a price on carbon. It’s the only way to get people to move off coal because coal is currently so cheap,” he said.

The environmentalist want to raise the cost of electricity.  So cheap coal-generated electricity isn’t so cheap.  So business have no less costly solution.  Thus guaranteeing their costs will rise.  Making them look elsewhere to cut costs.  As in not hiring people.  Or laying them off.  All the while passing these higher costs onto the consumer.  Increasing their utility costs.  As well as the goods they purchase.  Leaving them with less disposable income.  Thus reducing economic activity.  With them buying less business will sell less.  Which means they won’t expand.  Instead, they’ll probably cut their production.  And lay off people.

However you look at it, increasing the cost of energy ends badly for the consumer.  And that’s exactly what the EPA wants to do.  And the Obama administration.  So they can implement their green initiatives.  And, of course, adding a tax on carbon, the most abundant byproduct of energy production, provides a lot of revenue for an overextended federal government.  Which is, I’m sure, just a coincidence.  And by coincidence I mean it’s the driving force behind all green initiatives.  Increasing tax revenue.

The EU wants to Emission Tax the World’s Airlines

But this is not an American phenomenon.  It’s even bigger in the European Union.  And they’re looking to export their regulations to other nations (see Airlines, EU in escalating trade row over emissions by David Fogarty and Pete Harrison posted 6/5/2011 on Reuters).

Global airlines attacked the European Union on Sunday over its plan to force them into the bloc’s emissions trading scheme, as the EU vowed to stand firm against threats of retaliation…

The EU will require all airlines flying to Europe to be included in the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) from January 1 next year. The system forces polluters to buy permits for each tone of carbon dioxide they emit above a certain cap.

You want to fly to the EU?  Well, that’s fine, but there’ll be an additional tax.  You see, we’re trying to save the planet.  And our treasury.  As these EU bailouts are getting expensive.  And don’t appear to be ending any time soon.

Airlines say the scheme will increase costs and comes at a time when fears are growing about a faltering global economy, which could slash industry profit expectations…

“The last thing that we want to see is a trade war,” said Giovanni Bisignani, director-general of the International Air Transport Association. The EU had to heed a “growing chorus of countries strongly opposing an illegal extraterritorial scheme.”

“We have to absolutely avoid this because the risk of retaliation for Europe that is in survival mode would be the kiss of death,” he told Reuters on the sidelines of IATA’s annual meeting in Singapore.

The younger people today may not know what a trade war is.  It’s when one country raises the price of doing business in your country to every other country trying to do business in your country.  This is to protect the higher-priced domestic industries.  By removing lower-priced consumer alternatives.  When countries retaliate by doing the same you get a trade war.  And it is the consumer who suffers.  Because everything they buy becomes more expensive.  Oh, and it was a trade war that caused the Great Depression.

Under the scheme, the aviation sector will receive 213 million carbon permits, called EU Allowances (EUAs) in 2012 and then 209 million from 2013 to 2020, representing the cap. As many as 82 percent of them will be given free to airlines, meaning most of the rest will have to be bought from the market.

With six months before the sector joins the ETS, opposition is growing.

A China Southern executive has said the China Air Transport Association is preparing to sue the EU over the issue, a Chinese media report said.

“The opposition is broad,” said Andrew Herdman, Director-General of the Association of Asia Pacific Airlines, which represents 15 airlines such as Cathay, Japan Airlines and Singapore Airlines…

China says Europe should adjust the ETS to reflect the differences between rich and poor countries, while Vijay Mallya, chairman of India’s Kingfisher Airlines, said he could not accept it.

The EU may know what’s best for the planet.  And their bank.  But the world doesn’t appear that it will sit back and transfer sovereignty and money to them without a protest.  Or a fight.  Perhaps even a trade war.  Which would be a bad thing as much of the world tries to pull itself out of the worst recession since the Great Depression.  And it would be a terrible shame for history to repeat itself on that score.  For one Great Depression was quite enough.

Carbon Taxes and Carbon Trading kills Jobs and crashes Economies

Green energy initiatives are just a cover for massive tax increases.  For desperate nations who can’t control their spending.  That’s why nations everywhere are fighting against carbon taxes and trading.  They see the cost to business.  And the jobs they will kill.  It’s not that they want to kill the planet.  They just don’t want to subsidize another nation’s financial problems.  Or see their own economies crash.  Which it will under a carbon taxing/trading scheme.

Environmental policies and economic activity are a trade off. You advance one by reducing the other.   Which makes advancing environmental policies during recessionary times difficult.  Because it’s one thing to save the planet when you have a job.  But another when you don’t.  At such a time, yes, you care about the planet.  But you care more about your family.  You think to yourself that the planet can take care of itself.  It survived ice ages.  Cataclysmic meteorite collisions.  Huge volcanic explosions.  Droughts.  Fires.  Hurricanes.  Tornadoes.  Earthquakes.  Plagues.  And if it can survive all that, you think it’ll be able to survive your having a job so you can support your family.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,