Category: Fighting back

Higher electric rates to subsidize renewables?

California state Sen. Fran Pavely has proposed that utilities be required to buy renewable energy at above-market costs for fixed periods, according to a report in Carbon Control News (March 9).

Major California utilities oppose the proposed subsidy/tariff noting, in part, that “it could significantly raise electricity rates on customers during a recession,” according to the report.

CCN notes that “the tariff may serve as a model for other states or the federal government.”

Take action:

E-mail Sen. Pavley and tell her that you don’t want to pay more for electricity in these tough times, especially since increased use of renewable energy will have no discernible positive impact on the environment.

NY Gov. attacked for acting without greens’ OK

Green groups are attacking New York Gov. David Paterson for permitting electric utilities more flexibility with carbon dioxide emissions. Worse, according to the greens, he did it without first asking them for permission!

The New York Times reported this morning that,

At the urging of the energy industry, Gov. David A. Paterson has agreed to reconsider a key rule New York adopted as part of a 10-state pact aimed at reducing the threat of global warming by cutting power plant emissions.

Mr. Paterson appeared to overrule the State Department of Environmental Conservation in making the move, which would reopen state regulations to provide power plants leeway to release greater amounts of emissions at no additional cost. Administration officials said the governor was concerned the rule might unfairly burden the energy industry.

His decision infuriated environmental groups, which learned of Mr. Paterson’s decision just this week, though he met with energy executives privately last fall and assured them he would take the step.

Take Action:

The Times reported that

Several environmental groups, including the Natural Resources Defense Council and Environmental Advocates of New York, sent a letter on Wednesday to the governor’s top deputy, Larry S. Schwartz, protesting the move.

Fire off your own e-mail supporting Gov. Paterson’s move!

Steve Milloy’s new book, “Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Control Your Life and What You Can Do to Stop Them,” focuses on how the greens are making energy more expensive and less available.

Three cheers for ExxonMobil!

Exxon Mobil announced yesterday that it would:

invest at record levels — between $25 billion and $30 billion annually over the next five years — to meet expected long-term growth in world energy demand.

DRILL, BABY, DRILL!

ExxonMobil’s 2008 highlights include:

  • Production started at eight major projects in 2008, which at their peak are expected to add the net equivalent of 260,000 barrels per day to the company’s production. A further nine major projects are expected to commence production in 2009, and at their peak are expected to add the net equivalent of an additional 485,000 barrels per day to production.
  • The company once again replaced more than 100 percent of production through proved reserves additions in 2008. It was the 15th consecutive year that the company’s proved reserves additions have more than replaced production. In addition, net exploration acreage has been increased by about 40 percent since 2003.
  • In the downstream, the company is progressing plans to invest more than $1 billion in lower-sulfur diesel projects at three refineries in the US and Europe. Once complete in 2010, these projects will allow an increase in lower-sulfur diesel production of 140,000 barrels per day.

Steve Milloy’s new book “Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Control Your Life and What You Can Do to Stop Them” discusses how there’s plenty of oil for our energy needs — if only the greens will let us at it.

Click here for ExxonMobil’s press release.

Business Climate Lobby: Once ‘at the table’, now ‘on the menu’

Kim Strassel writes in today’s Wall Street Journal about how lobbying for climate change regulation is shaping up as a giant miscue for corporate America.

Strassel cites Duke Energy CEO Jim Rogers’ original rationale for lobbying:

“If you don’t have a seat at the table, you’ll wind up on the menu.”

Now, Strassel writes,

Duke sat, yet it and its compatriots are still shaping up to be Washington’s breakfast, lunch and dinner. The Obama plan will cost plenty, upfront, which will be borne by Mr. Rogers’s customers.

Stassel closes her terrific piece by recommending that:

Business leaders might do better to use this as an opportunity to kill the beast. They might get some credit for protecting their customers from what they are now, finally, admitting is a giant tax — in the middle of a recession.

The odd saga and miscues of corporate climateers like Duke Energy are spotlighted in Steve Milloy’s new book “Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Control Your Life and What You Can Do to Stop Them.”

Take Action:

E-mail Strassel’s column to a USCAP CEO that you know.

California’s killer cars

As California seeks a waiver from the EPA to establish its own carbon dioxide emission standards for cars, General Motors notes in its annual 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that,

… Since CO2 emissions are directly proportional to the amount of fuel consumed by motor vehicles, CO2 emissions per mile are directly related to fuel consumption per mile. In this regard, California’s attempt to regulate CO2 emissions per mile is tantamount to establishing state level fuel economy standards…

This means that the only way to reduce automobile CO2 emissions is basically to make lighter — more deadly — cars.

Should you risk your life for the sake of CO2 emissions?

Take Action

Read this post for directions on how you can urge the EPA to not grant the California waiver.

Gunfight with Al Gore Zombies at the EPA Corral!

Al Gore’s Repower America activist group has asked its members to sign a petition urging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to grant the state of California a waiver to set carbon dioxide emissions limits for motor vehicles.

CEI’s Marlo Lewis explains here why granting the California waiver is a bad idea.

Now that you know enough to oppose the waiver, please take a moment to submit your comments to the EPA. Here’s how according to the EPA Federal Register notice:

Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0173, by one of the following methods:

  • http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions
    for submitting comments.
  • E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov.
  • Fax: (202) 566-9744.
  • Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West (Air
    Docket), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Room B108, Mail Code 6102T,
    Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0173. Please include a total of two copies.

Your thoughtful comments will surely be more impressive to the EPA than an empty-headed petition signed by Al Gore’s zombies.

Carbon Tax for California?

Carbon Control News reported this morning that,

A special California budget commission tasked with proposing new sources of revenue for the state is scheduled to discuss next week a broad new carbon tax that would likely be aimed at major energy and fuels providers, and which could potentially raise billions of dollars annually to help the state meet its growing budget shortfall.

Fortunately,

The proposal is already being attacked by major industry groups in the state, which argue are currently facing multiple carbon fees and taxes under the state’s sweeping climate change regulatory program currently being implemented under the 2006 state law, AB 32…

The coalition—the AB 32 Implementation Group—argues that the state is already implementing a number of greenhouse gas (GHG) regulations and programs under AB 32 that will… add up to $50,000 to the cost of a new home, … cost between $1,000 and $3,000 per car, and [add] a new $500-million-a-year water charge.”

Click here for the AB 32 memo to the Commission.

Take Action:

Californians should direct their concerns to Mark Iberle, Staff Director for the Commission on the 21st Century Economy. You can phone the Commission at (916) 322-2263.

Unions attack free trade through climate

Carbon Control News reported this morning that the United Steelworkers union is

is exploring a hybrid policy that would combine a cap-and-trade scheme for utilities and other domestic sectors, while narrowly applying an excise carbon tax on domestic and foreign manufacturers to avoid “leakage” of jobs and GHG emissions to countries with lax environmental policies…

The model envisioned by the USW would apply an excise tax on manufactured products, based on the GHGs emitted during production. In order to spur GHG reductions, the taxes would be levied on GHGs in excess of a predetermined cap that could be lowered periodically to meet the emissions-reduction targets President Obama has set forth; the taxes also could increase over time to provide further incentive for manufacturers to clean up their processes, according to sources. To ensure domestic and foreign manufacturers are treated the same, the tax would be levied on importers of foreign products and rebated on exported products, similar to the value added tax (VAT) applied to an array of products in many countries.

Democrat lawmakers supporting the idea, according to Carbon Control News, include Reps. John Larson (D-CT), Jim McDermott (D-WA) and Pete Stark (D-CA).

Just what we need during the most significant global economic calamity in 75 years — anti-trade policies.

Take action:

Contact your congressional representative as well as Reps. Larson, McDermott and Stark and tell them that global trade is the path to peace and prosperity while junk science-based tariffs can only lead to global economic stagnation and international ill-will.

Cavuto rips Greenpeace rep on being ‘right’

Check out this clip of Fox News’ Neal Cavuto interviewing a Greenpeacer today:

[Cavuto]… With the global warming argument you’re pushing companies and a commitment of government monies to address a crisis that might not be the crisis you say it is. And if we’re wrong on this, we have spent mightily and committed a lot of resources that are precious and few to something that might be no more than passing climate change and not the crisis you say that it is — manmade global warming…

[Greenpeacer] Well, again, it’s not what I say. It’s what the climate science says. And I know your job is to stir up debate and pose the opposite point of view…

[Cavuto]… I just want to know what the hell is going on. When it’s warm you’re right. When it’s cold you’re right. When it’s raining you’re right. When it’s blizzarding you’re right. When it’s, like… I don’t know… it just seems you’re always right…

Kudos to Cavuto for pushing back…

Girl Scouts: Badges Out, Green In

The Washington Post reported this morning that the Girls Scouts are trying to revive flagging interest in the group by de-emphasizing merit badges and emphasizing green activities:

… What’s in: books and blogs written in girls’ voices on topics such as environmental awareness and engineering; troops led by college students; videoconferencing with scouts in other countries…

The biggest change is last year’s debut of Journeys, a pilot curriculum that will mostly replace the system of earning badges on specific topics. Girls still will be able to earn badges if they want, but Journeys rarely mentions them, focusing instead on broader themes, including teamwork and healthy living. Rather than scouts earning a badge for cooking a single nutritious meal, for example, the books emphasize fruits and vegetables whenever food is mentioned…

Many lessons focus on changing the world in measurable, modern ways. Recycling is still an important part of lessons on helping the environment, but some troops also install solar panels and test water quality in rivers.

This is not surprising given its source: the Girl Scouts hired the global PR firm Ogilvy & Mather, which went green last year according to this April 28, 2008 report in The Australian:

Last week, public relations firm Ogilvy launched its new brand OgilvyEarth to better position itself in the growing green communications and brand management markets. It released results of a survey of more than 50 companies about their attitudes to green branding and the risk of green wash. More than three-quarters think having a positive environmental brand will be essential to their business case within 10 years.

While 90 per cent said they had never been accused of green washing themselves, 98 per cent said it existed in corporate Australia, and 74 per cent said it was intentional.

It’s a shame that the Girl Scouts want to throw out their heritage and reputation in the greenwash.

Also, should we buy Girl Scout Cookies to support Ogilvy & Mather and its program to green our daughters?

Take Action:

Send your thoughts to Connie Lindsey (cl5@ntrs.com), the Chair of the Girls Scouts National Board of Directors. You may want to cc Davia Temin (dtemin@teminandco.com), the Board’s First Vice President.

Success in defending George Will!

Thanks to all who sent e-mails to the Washington Post defending George Will.

Post Ombudsman Andy Alexander wrote about the controversy today noting that the green attack e-mails against Will were “often identical in wording” but they “were soon countered by waves of e-mails defending Will and attacking what may labeled ‘global warming alarmism’.”

Green fanatics are apparently not smart enough to criticize Will on their own — all they can do is repeatedly click the ‘send’ button on comments that have been crafted for them.

BP CEO calls for more drilling

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed calling for more domestic oil drilling, BP CEO Tony Hayward observed,

… energy security can only be built on a solid foundation of free markets and free trade. Two-thirds of the world’s oil is traded across international borders. This huge and agile market makes it possible to respond quickly to supply disruptions, such as hurricanes or political unrest. Tariffs, heavy taxes, or restrictions on the free movement of petroleum products interfere with that process…

… America must stop looking to others for the oil it needs and actively develop its own hydrocarbon endowment. Even with the rapid growth of alternatives, fossil fuels will continue providing most of the energy Americans consume for decades into the future.

The search for new sources of domestic crude has been constrained by a lack of access to promising areas, notably the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). Resource estimates for closed areas exceed 100 billion barrels of oil, with 30 billion recoverable with today’s technology and at today’s prices.

Opening up the OCS would enhance America’s energy security. Moreover, a new study by ICF International estimates that it could create as many as 76,000 new jobs and generate a total of nearly $1.4 trillion in new government revenue by 2030…

What a refreshing change from Lord John Browne who thought BP stood for “Beyond Petroleum.”