Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) wrote to Senate Environment and Public Works chairman Barbara Boxer demanding that the Senate hold hearings on the specific provisions of a climate bill rather than on general climaterrata:
…our constituents have a right to know specifically how this legislation will affect them and this requires hearings on the specific legislation and provisions we will consider.
Click here for the release and letter.
In this Wall Street Journal op-ed “So Much for energy Independence,” Robert Bryce notes that,
The U.S. gets about 98 times as much energy from natural gas and oil as it does from ethanol and biofuels. And measured on a per-unit-of-energy basis, Congress lavishes ethanol and biofuels with subsidies that are 190 times as large as those given to oil and gas.
Bryce also notes that ethanol may be causing damage to engines:
In January, Toyota announced that it was recalling 214,570 Lexus vehicles. The reason: The company found that “ethanol fuels with a low moisture content will corrode the internal surface of the fuel rails.” (The rails carry fuel to the engine injectors.) Furthermore, there have been numerous media reports that ethanol-blended gasoline is fouling engines in lawn mowers, weed whackers and boats.
Lawyers in Florida have already sued a group of oil companies for damage allegedly done to boat fuel tanks and engines from ethanol fuel. They are claiming that consumers should be warned about the risk of using the fuel in their boats.
Then there’s the food problem:
There is also corn ethanol’s effect on food prices. Over the past two years at least a dozen studies have linked subsidies that have increased the production of corn ethanol with higher food prices.
Finally, Bryce observes:
Mr. Obama has been pro-ethanol and anti-oil for years. But he and his allies on Capitol Hill should understand that removing drilling incentives will mean less drilling, which will mean less domestic production and more imports of both oil and natural gas.
That’s hardly a recipe for “energy independence.”
At today’s Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing on carbon control, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) showed EPA administrator Lisa Jackson and Energy Secretary Steven Chu a chart depicting the extremely limited impact on atmospheric CO2 concentrations that would result from unilateral action on emissions by the US. The chart had been developed by the EPA for last year’s Warner-Lieberman bill.
When Inhofe asked Chu if he agreed with the chart — i.e., whether unilateral US action would have only a negligible impact on the CO2 level — Chu said he disagreed.
When Jackson got her turn to comment on the chart, she essentially agreed that the chart was correct and unilateral US action would accomplish little.
I guess Chu didn’t win his Nobel for honesty.
Here’s the video:
“Unable to Unload Limping Divisions, GE Invests in Propping Them Up” is the headline of this article in today’s Wall Street Journal.
If you the read the article, however, you’ll find that it is actually taxpayers that are doing the propping:
In the appliance division [which GE tried unsuccessfully to sell], GE’s union of 2,100 hourly workers in Louisville voted in May to freeze wages as part of GE’s agreement to build energy-efficient hot-water heaters in Louisville. GE also is getting $17 million in government incentives. It hopes the products will open markets and inject new life into GE’s appliance business.
[The chief of GE’s lighting-and-applicance group] believes there is still an outside chance GE might decide to hang on to the units, especially in light of the subsidies and tax breaks the Obama administration is doling out for energy efficiency.
More on GE’s Welfare Queen business strategy:
Rolling Stone reporter Matt Taibbi does a terrific job of exposing Goldman Sachs in his article “The Great American Bubble Machine.”
Particularly relevant here, Taibbi spotlights the “global warming bubble” as Goldman’s current pump-and-dump scheme. He’s not the first to write about this ongoing phenomena, but it is nice to see that Rolling Stone raises at least some questions about the rush to global warming.
I don’t believe Taibbi’s full article is available on the web yet, so you’ll have to get a hold of a print copy of Rolling Stone — it’s a very worthwhile read.