“In a sign of the difficulties facing the development of wind energy, T. Boone Pickens, the legendary Texas oilman, is suspending plans to build the world’s largest wind farm,” reports reports the New York Times.
We are proud to have helped expose the Pickens Plan for the scam that it was.
Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Olympia Snow (RINO-ME) have introduced a bill to make the Commodity Futures Trading Commission the sole regulator of the carbon market created by cap-and-trade legislation.
So does this mean that freebooting Goldman Sachs could be the de facto regulator of the carbon market?
Consider that:
The current chairman of the CFTC is Gary Gensler, formerly of Goldman Sachs.
Goldman Sachs is a part owner of the exchanges where carbon allowances would be traded.
Goldman Sachs has spent millions of dollars lobbying for cap-and-trade legislation in anticipation of making billions of dollars at the expense taxpayers and consumers.
Goldman has a special exemption from the CFTC to exceed the trading limits normally placed on commodity speculators. Not only was this exemption secret for 17 years, the CFTC recently had to ask Goldman for permission to release the letter to Congress!
Goldman Sachs employees are heavy contributors to the Democratic Party giving it over $4.4. million in the last election. Barack Obama received more than $997,000, Feinstein received $24,250, and Snowe received $17,000 from Goldman. All-in-all, this could result in a pretty decent return-on-investment for Goldman.
As the global warming bubble inflates and then bursts, will Goldman Sachs self-regulate all the way to the bank… making record profits at the expense and misery of taxpayers and consumers?
Can you tell the difference between the CFTC and Goldman Sachs?
Gary Gensler, CFTC ChairmanLloyd Blankfein, Goldman Sachs Chairman
EPA officials have suggested to Kansas environmental officials that integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) technology be considered as “best available control technology” for the controversial coal-fired Holcomb Power Plant proposed to be built by Sunflower Electric Power Corp.
But this is a thinly-veiled effort by the EPA to apply pressure against the construction of new coal-fired power plants.
IGCC, which involves turning coal into gas before combustion, is an expensive and a not-ready-for-prime-time technology that could force utilities simply to opt out of coal and into natural gas.
“If IGCC is going to be considered BACT for coal generation, then you might as well throw in natural gas as well because in both cases you’re using entirely different forms of generation to achieve lower emissions.”
BACT is the EPA standard that must be met for new sources of air emissions.
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.
In this Wall Street Journalop-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.
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.
“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.
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.
President Obama has decided to stand athwart global warming and to yell “Stop!” [Exclusive image below!]
According to Carbon Control News (July 2), President Obama will agree at upcoming international climate control meetings this week to set the planet’s thermostat by capping global warming at 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.
There’s no word on what Obama has selected as the baseline pre-industrial global temperature, but the exercise is superficially reminiscent of King Cnut’s effort to control the tides. Here’s the Wikipedia summary of Cnut’s folly:
Henry of Huntingdon, the 12th-century chronicler, tells how Cnut set his throne by the sea shore and commanded the tide to halt and not wet his feet and robes; but the tide failed to stop. According to Henry, Cnut leapt backwards and said “Let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings, for there is none worthy of the name, but He whom heaven, earth, and sea obey by eternal laws.” He then hung his gold crown on a crucifix, and never wore it again. [We should be so lucky!]
But since Barack (the only under-50 community organizer in history with two autobiographies) seems to be no Cnut (a warrior king who learned the limits of his power), there must be an alternative explanation for Obama’s action.
The 2-degree limit seems to be an ironic effort to disconnect greenhouse gas emissions from global warming legislation in order to make it easier to pass the legislation and, then, to give the greens the freedom to ratchet down emissions levels beyond levels currently being discussed.
One green told Carbon Control News that,
“… it’s a lot easier to talk about 2 degrees than to quantify how much carbon can be in the air.”
Carbon Control News also reported that,
Another environmentalist says a commitment based on limiting temperature rise leaves open discussion of actual emission reductions that would be needed to meet that goal. [The environmentalist suggested that] the U.S. and other developed countries may eventually have to seek emissions reductions beyond the 80 percent cut by 2050 that is so often presented as the long-term goal.
The report continued,
Meanwhile, some suggest the focus on temperature-based targets are an effort to avoid thornier talk of specific greenhouse gas emission reduction commitments that have proved a sticking point between the U.S. and other countries participating in the global talks. One global warming skeptic says framing the debate in temperature terms avoids the “bean counters” quantifying emission reductions and could provide an easier sell politically. “The more vague you can make it, the more easily you can declare a PR victory without actually doing anything,” the source says. [GreenHellBlog Note: The use of this latter information source is very exciting since we didn’t know that Carbon Control News even knew what a skeptic was!]
Perhaps, King Barack has aready accomplished his mission as there’s been no global warming over the last 10 years?
King Barack stands athwart global warming, yelling "Stop!"
… as the the UK moves from Magna Carta (circa. 1215) to Magna Carba. Here’s the sad report in today’s Times:
The boys in green are coming as the Environment Agency sets up a squad to police companies generating excessive CO2 emissions.
The agency is creating a unit of about 50 auditors and inspectors, complete with warrant cards and the power to search company premises to enforce the Carbon Reduction Commitment (CRC), which comes into effect next year.
Decked out in green jackets, the enforcers will be able to demand access to company property, view power meters, call up electricity and gas bills and examine carbon-trading records for an estimated 6,000 British businesses. Ed Mitchell, head of business performance and regulation at the Environment Agency, said the squad would help to bring emissions under control. “Climate change and CO2 are the world’s biggest issues right now. The Carbon Reduction Commitment is one of the ways in which Britain is responding.”
This analysis appeared this morning on FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right, which is a web site that analyzes polling and voting data written by Nate Silver and Sean Quinn.
Phew… not all libertarians have lost their minds when it comes to Wall Street Journal op-eds on green topics.
In an op-ed today, Gabriel Roth of the Independence Institute recommends that states opt out of the federal Highway Trust Fund in order to destroy a mechanism that is being used by the federal government to coerce you out of your car:
To fight climate change, Washington wants you to take a bus.
Roth gets points not only for understanding that libertarianism is about individual liberty and limited government, but also for suggesting a means of dismantling the federal leviathan.
