Tag Archives: Biden Administration

The EV Tax Credit Is a Climate Lemon

Leave a comment

From Watts Up With That?

By Oliver McPherson-Smith

The Inflation Reduction Act’s consumer tax credit for electric vehicles (EVs) is a fiscal blowout and a gift to Chinese mineral companies. If that isn’t bad enough, it also swindles American taxpayers into paying up to $821 per ton of avoided emissions, which is several multiples above the Biden Administration’s own estimates of the cost of carbon. At that staggering price, the scheme is a spectacularly inefficient way to reduce emissions.

Through the so-called Inflation Reduction Act, taxpayers subsidize the purchase of new electric vehicles by up to $7,500. But how many tons of carbon emissions does that actually stop from reaching the atmosphere? Compared to a conventional vehicle, the International Energy Agency estimates that using an EV avoids the equivalent of around 22.24 tons of carbon dioxide across its lifecycle. This means that the EV tax credit costs around $337 to avoid each ton of carbon emissions.

However, the true cost is actually higher because proper accounting should exclude EV consumers who would buy electric vehicles regardless of the tax credit. Because the tax credit doesn’t sway those consumers, the associated avoided emissions shouldn’t be attributed to the credit. The credit has the same $7,500 value, but the scheme is actually avoiding fewer carbon emissions, so the price per ton is higher.

According to a 2021 study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, 70% of consumers who claimed the federal EV tax credit would have done so in its absence, which would imply a $1,123 implicit cost of carbon. Since then, the Inflation Reduction Act introduced new conditions on the tax credit, including limits on eligibility for high-income buyers. Even if one generously assumes that the remaining pool of very motivated buyers is only half the size — meaning only 35% would purchase an EV without it — then the implicit cost of carbon is still $519 per ton.

The federal splurge on carbon gets a further boost thanks to President Biden’s onerous fuel efficiency standards. Mandating higher fuel efficiency means that a shift from a conventional vehicle to an EV has less of an effect in terms of avoided emissions. In May 2022, the Department of Transportation mandated that new cars on the roads in 2026 be 33% more fuel efficient than the 2021 standards. When consumers choose EVs over these more efficient gas-fueled vehicles, the implicit price of carbon within the EV credit jumps to $775. As the Biden Administration progressively ratchets these efficiency standards higher, so too goes the implicit price on carbon. By 2031, federal taxpayers will be forking over the equivalent of $821 for each ton of carbon the EV tax credit prevents from reaching the atmosphere.

Frittering away more than $800 for a ton of carbon is a rip-off that not even the most unscrupulous used car salesman could dream up. Compare this figure to recent estimates of the “social cost of carbon,” which the federal government uses to quantify the impact of emissions when making regulatory decisions. While the Trump Administration estimated it to be between $1 to $7 per ton, the Biden Administration blew the roof off in 2023 by raising that cost to $190. That progressive overstatement now looks like a steal.

Even within the Inflation Reduction Act’s tax and spend circus, the EV tax credit is a spectacularly wasteful way to reduce carbon emissions. For example, the natural gas tax, which solely punishes the oil and gas industry under a thin guise of environmentalism, levies a fee equivalent to $36 per ton of carbon. Meanwhile, the tax credit for vacuuming emissions out of the air is worth up to $180 per ton. These dramatically different prices, even within a single act of Congress, underscore the practical futility of calculating an efficient price on carbon for a carbon tax or tariff.

Progressives like to measure the success of their policies by how much taxpayer money they can burn through, and the White House periodically reminds taxpayers that the Inflation Reduction Act is the largest single climate spending spree in human history. What they don’t mention is that the American public is being ripped off at the car lot with a climate lemon of a tax credit.

Oliver McPherson-Smith, Ph.D., is the Director of the Center for Energy & Environment at the America First Policy Institute and a research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution.

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.

Canada’s climate tyranny growing; America is not far behind

From CFACT

By Peter Murphy

KIEV, UKRAINE – Jul 11, 2016: Prime Minister of Canada Justin Trudeau during his official visit to Kiev, Ukraine

O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

God keep our land glorious and free!

  • From the national anthem of Canada

Oh, Canada. You’re in trouble.

And America is not far behind its northern neighbor in losing its freedom and becoming an effective dictatorship.

Climate change policies are the root cause of the transformation from a mostly free society to a less free, more tyrannical nation. The Canadian government, led by long-time Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, is climate fanatical and increasingly directing its citizens’ behavior in disturbing, ominous ways.

“There is no vaccine against a polluted planet,” said the prime minister back in late 2020 when he proposed raising the nation’s carbon tax. He also regularly refers to the “climate crisis” to explain his actions.

When the planet itself supposedly hangs in the balance, you can rationalize almost anything, no matter how silly, unscientific, or oppressive, starting with Mr. Trudeau’s false conflating of carbon with pollution, which is typical of the climate obsessives in America, too. The former is essential to life itself and inherent in Earth’s atmosphere, while the latter is a nuisance that has largely been solved as a practical matter in the U.S.

Carbon emissions from manmade sources are about 1/10,000th of the Earth’s atmosphere, and their increase has had no palpable or corresponding effect on global temperature. Yet that scientific fact and historical reality get lost in the pursuit of governmental power and societal control well underway in Canada and the U.S.

As for pollution from particulate matter, it still remains but is nowhere near commonplace in the U.S. as it was in the 1970s when the recently formed U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was implementing the Clear Air and Clean Water Acts and other landmark laws enacted by Congress. With carbon labeled as “pollution,” the EPA found a new purpose and expanded its bureaucracy and power.

But, back to our northern neighbor.

Canada imposes a carbon tax, bans coal power plants, subsidizes electric vehicles, and heavily regulates methane gas emissions in the oil and gas industry. The Trudeau government has been embarking on a plan to achieve “net-zero” carbon emissions by 2050, meaning carbon released into the atmosphere would be fully absorbed by planting trees, installing carbon capture storage facilities, and other measures, including blocking Canada’s provinces from extracting abundant energy from its tar sands.

One step Prime Minister Trudeau announced earlier this year at the “Democracy Summit” in South Korea was to pledge more than $8 million to commission a study on the supposed connection between “democratic decline” and climate change. Specifically, the money will be used to support climate change policy advocates in other countries, to reclaim “civic space to confront the climate emergency [and] support human rights defenders working on climate and industrial issues across the global south,” the prime minister’s statement read.

In reality, climate policies are steadily eroding “human rights” in Canada and the U.S. because they are increasingly restricting what kind of car you can drive, where you can live (or what can be built next to you), what you can soon eat and not eat, and how and where you can travel. Ideas that may seem outlandish now are the canaries in the coal mine, such as forcing high-rise, low-income apartments in suburban communities, banning fertilizer, or eliminating gas-power cars – all in the name of saving the planet from “climate pollution.

We should not doubt this worrisome, restrictive direction since wannabe dictators like Justin Trudeau and President Joe Biden constantly give us not-subtle hints.

In early 2022, Canadian truckers organized a large, days-long protest in Ottawa that was ruthlessly broken up by Mr. Trudeau’s invoking the nation’s Emergencies Act to impose Marshall Law. This included blocking electronic donations to support the truckers and seizing protesters’ bank accounts. (CFACT supported the protests and raised funds for the truckers.)

Shortly following these protests, Mr. Trudeau was applauded by many in the European Parliament for warning against “threats to democracy”, yet his hypocrisy was too much some members, who condemned him for wielding his “quasi-liberal boot” against the protestors trying to protect their rights.

Now comes an effort by Trudeau to incarcerate his nation’s citizens who speak things he opposes with his Online Harms Act, which would effectively censor speech and includes empowering the police and courts to use Internet speech to impose fines and incarcerate those whom the state views as objectionable or threatening.

In the U.S., censorship directed by the Biden administration has been all too real, even though we are governed ostensibly by the Constitution’s First Amendment right to free speech.

“Freedom is never more than one generation from extinction,” said the 40th President of the United States, Ronald Reagan. “It must be fought for [and] protected.”

As the Trudeau government in Canada and the Biden administration here in the U.S. press on with climate policies that reach into every crevice of society, censor speech, and show a willingness to seize the bank accounts and incarcerate those who resist, freedom’s erosion in both countries is coming very rapidly indeed.

The Fossil-fuel Era: Still Young

From Master Resource

By Robert Bradley Jr.

“Oil, gas, and coal are ascending despite determined government efforts to reverse energy progress. With criteria air pollutants on the wane and carbon dioxide (CO2) benefits laboratory-proven, the increasing sustainability of fossil fuels is evident.”

Each years brings record production of the three fossil fuels: oil, natural gas, and coal. Peak demand is not in sight–nor should it be in a world of rising population, the aspiring poor, and new ways to employ inanimate energy to improve living. But what about future supply to meet growing demand?

In most nations of the world, free-market energy plenty is held back by government intervention. Government ownership and operation of fossil fuels and related infrastructure impedes supply and demand. But fossil fuel plenty is very hard to hold back, and enough is produced to reasonably meet demand. Such is true in the United States despite two hundred impediments from the Biden Administration. “The U.S. now has 227 years of oil supply, 130 years of natural gas supply, and 485 years of coal supply,” the study below reports. Canadian oil soldiers on despite the anti-energy policies of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

Mexico, a potential rival to Texas as a hydrocarbon center of the world, is the sad story of resource socialization and nationalization in place of private ownership of the subsoil and above-ground infrastructure. This country’s bountiful hydrocarbons await liberation in a future decade or century.

North American Energy

The Institute for Energy Research (IER) has just released an update to its 2011 study, 2024 North American Energy Inventory. As more oil, gas, and coal is produced, more is discovered to be produced, the amazing (but not biblical) story of resource expansion from free-market resourceship. Some highlights follow:

North America has vast energy resources, including oil, natural gas, and coal. These resources are enough to meet the country’s needs for hundreds of years to come. The first edition of the North American Energy Inventory, released in 2011, challenged the myth of energy scarcity and demonstrated the abundance of energy resources in North America.

Since 2011, the U.S. has become the world’s top producer of both oil and natural gas, thanks in large measure to technology. This has led to lower energy prices, job creation, and environmental benefits. The U.S. now has 227 years of oil supply, 130 years of natural gas supply, and 485 years of coal supply.

Canada also has abundant energy resources, including the fourth-largest global quantity of oil reserves. Mexico, on the other hand, has seen its energy production and reserves decline in recent years due primarily to government policies.

The current administration has taken hundreds of actions to make it harder to produce oil, natural gas, and coal in the U.S. In addition to regulatory impediments, the oil, natural gas, and coal industries face other challenges, such as difficulty raising capital, anti-fossil fuel activism, and competition from subsidized renewable energy sources.

Benefits of Domestic Energy Production:

  • Abundant and reliable energy: The U.S. is the world’s largest producer of oil and natural gas,
    which provides a secure and reliable supply of energy for the country.
  • Lower prices: Oil prices have largely shrugged off events like Russia invading Ukraine and instability in the Middle East—activities that would have driven up oil prices a decade or two ago. U.S. oil production is key to this new stability, saving families money and making the U.S. more competitive in the global economy.
  • Job creation: The oil and gas industries support millions of jobs in the U.S., both directly and indirectly. These jobs are often well-paying and provide good benefits.
  • Environmental improvements: The U.S. has made significant progress in reducing air pollution
    in recent years, even as energy production has increased. This is due, in part, to improved
    pollution control technologies.

Final Comment

Oil, gas, and coal are ascending despite determined government efforts to reverse energy progress. With criteria air pollutants on the wane and carbon dioxide (CO2) benefits laboratory-proven, the increasing sustainability of fossil fuels is evident.

The fossil fuel era is very young in human history, having eclipsed the renewable energy era just several centuries ago. IER’s recent inventory study confirms the benefits of even a quasi-free market can do. Resourceship forever!

Biden Games Gasoline Prices (election ahead?)

From Master Resource

By Allen Brooks

“The hypocrisy of the Biden administration taking credit for lower gasoline prices as the summer driving season begins by fulfilling a Congressional mandate is unsurprising.”

“We now have the amazing scenario where days before the start of the hurricane season, Democrats in Congress and Biden are willing to empty the gasoline reserve.”

The Department of Energy announced Tuesday that it would begin selling the one million barrels of gasoline in the Northeast Gasoline Supply Reserve.  Bids for the supply are due May 28th with delivery expected by June 30th.  Bids will be accepted for lots of 100,000 barrels.  The supply represents 42 million gallons of gasoline and is held in commercial storage tanks in Maine and New Jersey. 

The sale was mandated by the omnibus Congressional spending bill (HR 2882) approved in late March with procedural hijinks by Senate Leader Chuck Schumer.  If you remember, it was during the final hours of the Friday before the week-long Congress’ Easter Recess that the House passed the legislation 286-134 providing funding to keep the government operating through its September 30 fiscal year-end.  The bill was passed over to the Senate which passed it in the early morning hours of Saturday and forwarded it to the White House for President Joe Biden’s signature that evening.  Importantly, more Democrats than Republicans in the House voted for the bill as more than 100 Republicans voted against it. 

We now have the amazing scenario where days before the start of the hurricane season, Democrats in Congress and Biden are willing to empty the gasoline reserve.  Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in a statement, “By strategically releasing this reserve in between Memorial Day and July 4th, we are ensuring sufficient supply flows to the tri-state and northeast at a time hardworking Americans need it the most.”  How funny that the Biden administration is taking credit for helping consumers by following through on a Congressionally mandated action. 

I recently wrote about our drive from Houston to Rhode Island. My article discussed gasoline prices and how they became more expensive as we headed north, primarily due to higher state taxes in the Northeast states.  I commented on Biden’s election problem with high gasoline prices and our expectation that he would repeat his 2022 move to tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to lower pump prices in the run-up to the November election.  He was successful, but as shown in a chart, gasoline pump prices have increased 53% since Biden entered office.

Biden successfully pushed down gasoline prices by tapping the SPR in 2022.

The gasoline reserve was established in 2014, two years after Super Storm Sandy slammed the Northeast region and disrupted fuel supply availability sending gasoline prices soaring.  Some gasoline stations were without fuel for 30 days.  Having gasoline supplies pre-positioned in the region reduces the risk for consumers from future storm disruptions. 

East Coast states depend on Colonial Pipeline for 55% of their gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel supply.

The vulnerability of the Northeast and Middle Atlantic states to fuel supply disruptions emerged on May 7, 2021, when the Colonial Pipeline was hit in a ransomware attack.  The pipeline, which originates in Houston and runs to New York, supplies the East Coast states with 55% of its petroleum fuels – gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel.  The pipeline was shut down to protect its operations and billing system.  Operations were slowly restarted after the ransom was paid. 

Fuel shortages occurred at gasoline stations amid panic buying as the pipeline shutdown extended for days.  By the fourth day, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina reported shortages.  Areas from northern South Carolina to southern Virginia were hardest hit, with 71% of gasoline stations running out of fuel in Charlotte on May 11th and 87% of stations out in Washington, D.C., on May 14th.  Average fuel prices rose to their highest point since 2014, reaching more than $3 a gallon.  Jet fuel availability caused several airlines operating from Charlotte to alter refueling arrangements including forced refueling stops for long-haul flights. 

Estimates are that the gasoline reserve sale will raise $125 million but, importantly, cut storage costs.  The Energy Department’s 2022 report on the SPR said it costs about $13 per barrel annually for operations and maintenance of the gasoline reserve compared with about 30 cents per barrel for crude oil in the SPR. 

The hypocrisy of the Biden administration taking credit for lower gasoline prices as the summer driving season begins by fulfilling a Congressional mandate is unsurprising.  We are also struck by how shortsighted Democrats are, especially those in the Northeast states who voted for the spending bill.  Their shortsightedness is laughable given the region’s energy risk from supply disruptions on the eve of the start of the hurricane season, which is predicted to be extremely active. 

—————–

For more of G. Allen Brooks, see Energy Musings: Insights into the Energy Industry, where this post first appeared. It has been slightly revised for publication here. Mr. Brooks is a long-time participant in, observer of, and commentator on the energy industry. He has been a Wall Street securities analyst, an oil service company manager, a consultant to energy company executives, a member of the boards of directors of numerous energy companies, and a writer and commentator on energy markets and trends.

America’s Power Grid Could Buckle Under Sweltering Summer Heat, Watchdog Warns

UNITED STATES – AUGUST 15: Manhattan skyline is dark as the sun comes up on the morning after a massive power failure caused the largest power outage in the nation’s history, affecting 50 million people in parts of seven states and Canada. (Photo by Mike Albans/NY Daily News Archive via Getty Images)

From The Daily Caller

By NICK POPE

CONTRIBUTOR

Considerable portions of the U.S. are facing heightened risks of blackouts over the summer months, according to a new report by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC).

Most of New England, Texas, the Midwest and the Southwest face “elevated risk” of electricity shortages this summer if demand peaks at levels above normal, according to NERC’s 2024 summer reliability report. While the specific challenges that each region may face this summer differ, several large swaths of the country could have to respond to blackout conditions if solar and wind power fail to produce as much power as expected during periods of tight supply and more extreme summer weather.

“NERC’s latest reliability assessment shows that our electricity grid is becoming increasingly reliant on weather-dependent sources of electricity, leaving one-third of the country at elevated risk of blackouts this summer,” Michelle Bloodworth, CEO of America’s Power, a pro-coal advocacy group, said of the NERC report and its findings. (RELATED: Biden’s Climate Agenda May Jeopardize Grid Reliability, New Report Suggests)

Some of the nation’s hottest, most populous states and regions, including Texas and California, are listed among the areas at “elevated” risk, according to NERC. The report covers June through September of this year.

The Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO), which covers much of the Midwest, faces higher risks if solar and wind fail to deliver in key scenarios, NERC’s report states.

“MISO is expected to have sufficient resources, including firm imports, for normal summer peak demand. However, it can be challenging for MISO to meet above-normal peak demand if wind and solar resource output is lower than expected,” NERC’s report reads. “Wind generator performance during periods of high demand is a key factor in determining whether there is sufficient electricity supply on the system or if external (non-firm) supply assistance is required to maintain reliability.”

The report issued a similar warning about the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) region, which covers nearly all of Texas. ERCOT narrowly avoided blackouts in the summer of 2023, when a prolonged heat wave set in over the state.

“As a result of continued vigorous growth in both loads and solar and wind resources, there is a risk of emergency conditions in the summer evening hours when solar generation begins to ramp down. Contributing to the elevated risk is a potential need, under certain grid conditions, to limit power transfers from South Texas into the San Antonio region,” the report states. “These grid conditions can occur when demand is high and wind and solar output is low in specific areas, straining the transmission system and necessitating South Texas generation curtailments and potential firm load shedding to avoid cascading outages.”

NERC has previously warned that huge slices of the country face higher risks of blackouts in more extreme seasonal conditions.

The Biden administration has spent and regulated aggressively to push the American power grid away from fossil fuels and toward intermittent generation from sources like solar and wind. Electricity demand is also projected to grow rapidly in the coming years, due in large part to Biden administration policies driving electric vehicle (EV) adoption, building electrification and new semiconductor manufacturing facilities, according to Grid Strategies LLC, a power sector consultancy.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Energy Prices 30% Higher Under Biden Admin

From ClimateRealism

Guest Post by Andrew Terrell

Energy prices in the United States are wreaking havoc on budget-sensitive households, making it harder for families to save money or get ahead financially.

Since President Joe Biden took office in January 2021, Americans’ electricity bills have skyrocketed nearly 30%, or 13 times faster than in the previous seven years, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of the latest consumer price index data.

The data showed that the energy index rose by 1.1% in March following a 2.3% increase in February. The gasoline and electricity index also increased in March, climbing 1.7% and 0.9%, respectively. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reports that the energy index jumped 2.1%, the gasoline index increased 1.3%, and the electricity index soared 5.0% annually.

Despite the Federal Reserve holding interest rates steady since July 2023, inflation continues to pose a problem for policymakers and households.

“There is no improvement here, we’re moving in the wrong direction,” said Bankrate chief financial analyst Greg McBride in an interview with Fox Business. “The usual trouble spots persist — shelter, motor vehicle insurance, maintenance, repairs, and service costs. Add electricity to that list, up 0.9% in March and 5% over the past year.”

Part of the reason for the surge in energy prices is due to the push to replace fossil fuels and nuclear power plants with renewable subsidies and green-energy mandates.

Despite the Biden administration passing the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022, the law has done little to lower energy prices. For example, the average cost of electricity has jumped from $0.136 per kilowatt hour in January 2021 to $0.174 per kilowatt hour in March 2024, a nearly 28% increase, BLS data shows.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration expects hotter summer temperatures this year, so the agency forecasts an annualized 4% rise in residential electricity consumption. This means the average household’s electricity bill will be much more expensive in 2024 than in 2023.

Originally written by the Dallas Express, republished with permission.

Time To Save the Right Whales From the Green Left?

*Editor’s note: While, as Climate Realism has pointed out previously, here, whales are not threatened by climate change, right whales are confronted with more boat traffic, and are being driven into boat traffic by offshore wind development, especially via sonar testing.

From ClimateRealism

By Craig Rucker

There was a time back in the 1960’s and 70’s when a cause like “Save the Whales” was the exclusive domain of the political left.

But as Bob Dylan might say, “the times they are a changing”.

Three major “conservative” organizations – the National Legal Policy Center, Heartland Institute, and my organization, the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow – recently filed a major lawsuit in a Washington, D.C. federal court to save the Right Whale from facing potential oblivion.

Why aren’t the larger Green groups, unlike the grassroots ones, rallying around the efforts of these organizations to save Right whales?  Good question.  Perhaps it’s because the threat to the remaining 350 of them doesn’t come from Russian, Norwegian, or Japanese whaling vessels, as it did back in the 70’s.  Rather, it is from so-called “Green energy” in the form of offshore wind.  Right whales are being threatened by the Biden Administration’s fast-track plans to hurriedly place 30,000 MW of wind power generation off the Eastern coast, and doing so without the proper sort of environmental impact assessment they might otherwise perform for, say, offshore oil.

The collective decision by our outfits to take the issue of whale protection to Court came after two years of futile attempts to get the Biden Administration to listen. Offshore wind development threatens the nearly extinct North Atlantic Right Whale in various ways, and the government refuses to investigate.

The two agencies which share responsibility for making sure wind development does not harm whales include the Interior Department’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), which oversees building wind facilities, and the Commerce Department’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS or NOAA Fisheries), which enforces the various laws to protect whales. Neither seems intent on doing their job.

In issuing its “biological opinion” last September, for instance, NMFS only examined the impact that each of these projects individually and in isolation would have on the North Atlantic right whale. The agency did not, as it should have, issue a comprehensive and cumulative analysis examining the combined harm which all the projects, together, would inflict on the whales during their annual migration path.

If it had done so, it would have uncovered that dangerous noises generated from several projects combine to create much louder and more dangerous circumstances for marine mammals than noises coming from just a single project. In fact, impacts can combine over time as well, such as when migrating Right Whales are repeatedly forced to go around a dozen wind facilities into heavily trafficked shipping lanes. The risk of being struck by a ship then becomes ten times greater than for a single project.

It’s likely for such reasons the Endangered Species Act specifically calls for assessment of cumulative impacts such as these, but the Biden Administration has ignored this requirement.

BOEM and NMFS say there is no evidence of a threat to whales. But this is just a coverup. The Right Whale population began its rapid decline in 2017, the year offshore wind development began in earnest. The Humpback Whale death rate tripled that very year and has remained abnormally high.

NMFS actually provides some of the strongest evidence. For every wind project they estimate the number of marine mammals by species that will be adversely affected by construction noise, something which they call “Level B Harassment”. For Right Whales the cumulative total of predicted Level B Harassments the government projects, and allows for, is already roughly twice the total population of the mammal … and growing.

Why is this a big deal?  Because such harassment can easily lead to a whale death. This can happen, for example, when the noise level of an operating turbine disrupts the navigation of a marine mammal, driving it into heavy ship traffic or fishing nets. BOEM and NMFS have refused to consider this deadly possibility, even for a single project like Dominion Energy’s windfarm off Virginia Beach, much less cumulatively. Meanwhile more and more whales are dying from ship strikes and fishing net entanglements as offshore wind development recklessly accelerates.

Harassment-caused death is merely one of many potentially deadly threats that BOEM and NMFS refuse to assess.  There are others we have cited, including loss of habitat, reduced food supply, and concentrated ship traffic.  This is why we are asking the Court to require that the government undertake such an investigation, as they are required to do so under the ESA, on all offshore wind projects cumulatively.

“Save the whales” is more than a slogan. It should be a directive our federal agencies are eager to carry out.  But if they won’t do it, then they shouldn’t be surprised to see lawsuits headed their way from every corner of the public interest – including from those of us on the right.

Craig Rucker is co-founder and president of the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow

Originally posted at RealClearPolicy, reposted with permission.

The Entire Push To Halt New Natural Gas Exports Traces Back To One Ivy League Prof And His Shaky Study

From The Daily Caller

NICK POPE

CONTRIBUTOR

A questionable study by a Cornell University climate scientist gave climate activists and the media ammunition to wage a pressure campaign against the Biden administration to take action against liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports.

Cornell’s Robert Howarth authored the October 2023 study, which purported to find that lifecycle emissions associated with LNG exports are far greater than those attributable to domestically-mined coal. Numerous media outlets, including The New York Times, amplified the study, and climate activists lobbying the Biden administration to kill LNG exports cited it as evidence to substantiate their position before the White House announced the moratorium on LNG export terminal approvals on Jan. 26.

The study, titled “The Greenhouse Gas Footprint of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Exported from the United States,” found that “greenhouse gas emissions from LNG are also larger than those from domestically produced coal, ranging from 44% to more than 2-fold greater for the average cruise distance of an LNG tanker.” Howarth, who openly opposes the use of fossil fuels, admitted to releasing his study before it was peer-reviewed in order to influence the LNG export debate.

“According to the ethical guidelines from several of the professional societies to which I belong, scientists have a duty to provide information to the public and to decision-makers on important public issues when they have access to such information,” Howarth told the DCNF.

Howarth said environmental activist Bill McKibben was the one who convinced him to release the study before it underwent the months-long peer review process. McKibben himself wrote about the study in The New Yorker in October 2023, touting it as evidence that the Biden administration should not expand LNG export capacity.

After McKibben published his piece for The New Yorker and Howarth released the study to the public, the duo joined a November 2023 press call alongside several climate activists and Democratic lawmakers — including Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley — to talk about the issue of LNG exports, according to E&E News.

“From what I am told by reporters and what I read in the press, yes, my paper has had some impact,” Howarth said.

Indeed, The Wall Street Journal reported Howarth’s work influenced the Biden administration’s decision to pause approvals for new LNG export hubs.

Howarth’s study “clearly was a factor in the Biden administration’s decision to pause making the required determinations required for approval of new LNG export projects and launching a U.S. Department of Energy study of the climate impact of LNG exports,” Steven Hamburg, the Environmental Defense Fund’s chief scientist, told Bloomberg News.

The White House invariably felt pressure from left-wing lawmakers and environmental activists who regularly cited the study in their push to choke off U.S. natural gas exports.

Merkley cited the Howarth study as “the latest climate science” in a November 2023 letter to Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm. Sixty-four other lawmakers signed that letter, which called on Granholm to update her agency’s review process for LNG export facilities to include climate impacts.

Likewise, the Sierra Club promoted a story that cited the study and referred to one of the affected LNG export hubs as a “carbon bomb.” A disruptive outfit called Climate Defiance promoted the study on social media before meeting in December 2023 with Senior Advisor to the President John Podesta to lobby against the planned expansion of LNG export capacity. (RELATED: Biden Admin Leaned On Questionable And Misleading Science To Justify Halting Natural Gas Hub Approvals)

Scores of environmental groups cited Howarth’s study in a letter sent to President Joe Biden applauding his Jan. 26 decision to pause new LNG export terminals. In their letter, eco-activists also demanded Biden “[stop] all LNG and related fossil fuel infrastructure permits across all U.S. federal agencies.”

‘Widely Panned And Largely Dismissed’

Howarth‘s findings contradict plenty of existing research on the subject, including two Department of Energy (DOE) studies from 2014 and 2019, which concluded that American LNG exports to Asia and Europe do not create more lifecycle emissions than regionally-mined coal when used to generate power. The Cornell professor’s study has drawn the ire of the oil and gas industry, which has pointed out that Howarth‘s most recent findings are detached from a robust body of research on the subject.

“Dr. Robert Howarth openly admitted he prematurely released his not-yet-peer-reviewed study in order to influence politics and advance activist agendas against responsible oil and gas development,” Jeff Eshelman, the president and CEO of the Independent Petroleum Association of America, told the DCNF. “His research – which has been widely panned and largely dismissed by the scientific community – ignores the environmental benefits of U.S. natural gas and LNG, including data by the Department of Energy.”

Howarth — described by Politico as a “longtime sparring partner with the gas industry” — has come under fire for peddling shaky science about natural gas in the past. Back in 2012, he told a columnist for the New York Post that he was trying to make the anti-fracking movement more mainstream and trendy.

Howarth himself is closely tied to environmental activism. He is a board member for Food and Water Watch (FWW), a green nonprofit that has campaigned against natural gas development and exploration in New York state, though he denies this unpaid position influences his work.

His new paper was funded in part by the Park Foundation, a left-wing nonprofit with a stated goal of “[challenging] continued shale gas extraction and infrastructure expansion” and a strong presence in New York state, where Howarth’s university is located. Howarth told the DCNF the Park Foundation’s “modest” financial support of the study did not constitute a conflict of interest, and that the organization has no influence over his work.

The Park Foundation’s environment committee “recognizes that a firm stance against further oil and gas development is a necessary component to future funding decisions” and is resolved to support initiatives that “commit to the ‘keep it in the ground’ philosophy” or otherwise resist oil and gas drilling and infrastructure expansion, according to the organization’s website.

The Park Foundation gave Cornell University more than $530,000 to support natural gas-related academic work between 2010 and 2021, according to a DCNF review of tax filings.

Howarth’s study cites seven of his own previous papers, of which at least five were funded in part by the Park Foundation, a DCNF review of those studies found.

Howarth routinely slams Republicans on social media, castigating the “party of disinformation and misinformation” as a “cult” whose members “simply do not care about truth.” He’s also vocal in his opposition to the continued use of fossil fuels.

“I definitely consider myself to be an objective scientist,” Howarth said. “I also am a citizen, and as such have an ethical obligation to participate in our society. So no, I am not apolitical. But I am confident that my political views do not affect my scientific research.”

‘Not A Guarantee Of Quality Or Accuracy’

Howarth arrived at his topline finding by calculating the emissions caused by natural gas exports at every stage — from initial extraction to processing to final destination and end use — and comparing those emissions to the amount generated by every step of domestic coal extraction and use.

But Howarth has revised his study several times since releasing his study to the public. The initial version asserted that the lifecycle emissions of LNG exports are greater than those of domestically-produced coal, with the difference ranging between 24% and 274%. The study was updated on Jan. 13 to reflect that “total greenhouse gas emissions from LNG are larger than those from domestically produced coal, ranging from 27% to 2‐fold greater for the average cruise distance of an LNG tanker.”

Howarth announced on March 13 that he had again revised his study “using this new estimate, 4.6% emissions (not including urban/surburban (sic) distribution systems) for the best studied major U.S. shale gas fields.”

After the March update, the study now asserts that LNG exports can have lifecycle emissions that are greater than those of domestic coal by between 44% and 200% or more.

These updates have come under considerable criticism from the oil and gas industry and scholars.

William Jordan — general counsel for EQT, a natural gas company based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania — suggested to the WSJ that Howarth cherry-picked data and leaned on flawed assumptions to pursue influence rather than understanding.

“I received two anonymous reviews from the journal just before Christmas, as well as input from people who had read the original version online. I revised the manuscript based on these comments, and submitted it back to the journal on January 13,” Howarth told the DCNF in defense of his updates.

“The version posted online now is the latest version,” Howarth told the DCNF. “It is very much standard to revise in response to peer review comments. That is precisely what peer review is about!” (RELATED: Could Joe Biden’s Natural Gas Pause Cost Dems The Senate In November?)

Roger Pielke Jr., a former academic who has written extensively about politicized science, told the DCNF that while such practices are common, they’re less than ideal.

“The posting of pre-prints is now standard practice in many fields, and they are exactly that — pre-prints,” Pielke said. “That said, passive peer-review is not a guarantee of quality or accuracy, but in many cases a minimal check for quality. No one paper offers the last word, and these days, studies are often conducted with an outcome in mind.”

“That imposes a challenge on all of us, journalists especially, to be careful and critical consumers of the latest and greatest science,” Pielke said. “Too often published research is used to support favored and previously-held positions rather than considered on its merits.”

Howarth’s study also heavily relies on a 20-year timeframe to assess the impacts of emissions from LNG exports. Typically, researchers adopt a 100-year outlook, a number which Howarth describes as “arbitrary” in his work.

“Using [the twenty-year timeframe], LNG always has a larger greenhouse gas footprint than coal,” Howarth writes in the study.

“What we see here is the standard climate activist and Biden administration formula at play,” David Blackmon, a 40-year veteran of the oil and gas industry who now writes and consults on the energy sector, told the DCNF. “First, you allege a problem exists without any scientific basis. Then, you identify a ‘study’ with findings you like that can be used to form a basis for policy advocacy, which you pass onto your former fellow activists who are now in the administration, and let them run with it.”

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

CFACT in Alaska highlights tragic Biden mistakes

From CFACT

By Craig Rucker

CFACT just released a new episode of our “wildly” popular original video series, Conservation Nation.

You can view it HERE.

In this latest episode, host Gabriella Hoffman (who also serves as a CFACT senior policy analyst) explores Alaska’s “Inside Passage” — The Tongass National Forest near the state capital of Juneau.

On January 27th, 2023, the Biden Administration announced that all mining, hydropower, geothermal, and road construction will be barred in the Tongass under the guise of permanently protecting 9.37 million acres for the natural world.  He reinstated the so-called “roadless rule”, which prohibits any road construction for timber companies, sportsmen, firefighters, and wildlife officials to have better access to the forest.

While this may sound like a good thing, one must remember that the federal government already owns 65% of the state, and 40% of that is set aside for conservation. In addition, there are millions of additional acres of Alaska that are in state and private hands deemed wilderness as well.

Restricting access in the Tongass is a bad idea on a number of fronts. It is bad for economic development, and it is bad for nature as the “roadless rule” chokes off the ability of wildlife officials to manage forestland properly. It is one of 56 aggressive actions the Biden administration has taken against Alaska’s development. Sadly, it won’t be the last.

Viewers will learn how the Tongass National Forest is an important ecological and economic artery in the Last Frontier that doesn’t need to be closed off. It should be for the betterment and enjoyment of all—visitors and locals.

And, of course, there’s some fun added in. You’ll get to see Gabby scale the Goldbelt Tram and explore Mendenhall Glacier.

Don’t miss this exclusive CFACT report from the Land of the Midnight Sun.

Watch Part II of our Alaska report on Conservation Nation today!

Can ‘clean energy’ schemes get any crazier? 

From Watts Up With That?

Materials, costs and survivability for wind turbines on massive floating platforms defy reality

Paul Driessen

The US Interior Department’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management recently designated two Wind Energy Areas in deepwater areas off the Oregon coast. BOEM is also reviewing offshore wind energy development options for the Gulf of Maine, Central Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and maybe Great Lakes.

They’re part of Team Biden’s plan to deploy 30,000 megawatts of offshore wind energy capacity by 2030 and 15,000 MW of floating offshore wind energy capacity by 2035. Capacity is what the turbines could generate, when the wind is blowing at optimal speeds, perhaps 30-40% of the year.

30,000 MW is what 2,500 12-MW turbines could generate. It’s enough to meet New York State’s current peak electricity needs on a hot summer day. Add the electricity required to replace gasoline cars and natural gas furnaces and stoves, meet surging AI, data center and streaming video demands, and charge grid-scale backup batteries – and New York alone would likely need 10,000 12-MW offshore turbines.

Meeting the soaring electricity needs of all US states would require hundreds of thousands more.

BOEM nevertheless insists that “Offshore wind is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to build a new clean energy industry, tackle the climate crisis, and create good-paying jobs, while ensuring economic opportunities for all communities.”

Note to be outdone in baseless puffery, the Department of Energy extols the Administration’s goal of “decarbonizing” the entire US electric grid by 2035 and says “offshore wind is especially well-suited” for generating “clean energy.” Two-thirds of all US offshore wind potential, it says, exists over ocean areas so deep that turbines must be mounted on floating platforms anchored to the seafloor by mooring lines tied to suction piles sunk into bottom sediments.

DOE even claims it will somehow reduce the cost of floating deepwater wind energy to $45 per megawatt-hour by 2035. (That’s 45¢ per kilowatt-hour, triple what most Americans now pay.) To buttress its claims, DOE presents maps, artist’s renderings and images of floating turbine arrays.

It’s almost as though these government officials actually believe they can solve the alleged climate crisis by simply issuing proclamations, regulations, drawings, press releases and subsidies – and Voila!

Mines open, raw materials materialize, and millions of wind turbines, billions of solar panels, billions of vehicle and grid-scale batteries, millions of miles of transmission lines, millions of transformers and other technologies get manufactured and installed – affordably and with no fossil fuels, greenhouse gas emissions, toxic air and water pollutants, child and slave labor, or other evils (all at minimal cost), while endangered species and other environmental conflicts disappear (or are relegated to irrelevance) …

and cornucopias of clean, renewable, reliable, affordable electricity are rapidly generated worldwide.

It’s impolite to question fervently held beliefs in fossil-fuel-free utopias. However, a little reality is urgently needed before activists and bureaucrats take us any further down this primrose path.

12-MW offshore turbines are 850 feet tall, carry three 350-foot-long blades, and weigh thousands of tons. To date, few have been installed anywhere, none have been subjected to major hurricanes, and none have been mounted on deepwater floating platforms. Indeed, no such platform-mounted turbines exist outside the realm of concepts and ten-foot models in wind tunnels and test tanks.

The Kincardine floating turbines in the North Sea southeast of Aberdeen, Scotland are much smaller, and the strongest wind gusts recorded there were in the 83–123 mph range. Sustained wind speeds for category 3-5 hurricanes range from 111 to 157 mph and greater. Some of the worst US landfalling hurricanes reached 126 mph (Katrina, 2003) to 167 mph (Andrew, 1997). The strongest winds ever off the Oregon coast exceeded 100 mph (1962 and 1995).

Subsurface and semisubmersible structures for the smaller 2.0–9.5-MW deepwater turbines weigh 2,000 to 8,000 tons. New semisubmersible platforms for deepwater oil production can be over 30,000 tons and cost a billion dollars or more. Yet even they are probably not large enough for the monstrous 15-MW beasts that the Biden Administration, CNN and others are extolling.

Says CNN: “The first, full-sized floating offshore wind turbine in the United States will tower 850 feet above the waves in the Gulf of Maine…. The gigantic machine, with 774-foot diameter blades and tethered to the seabed with thick metal cables, is planned to be put into the water” by 2030.

It’s almost impossible to conceive of the amounts of steel and other raw materials that would be needed for each of these gigantic turbines and support systems; the amounts of ore that would have to be extracted to obtain those materials; the fossil fuels required to mine and process the ores, manufacture the turbines, blades and support systems, and transport and install them; the cost to build each of them.

Based on average deposits being mined today, the 110,000 tons of copper required for 30,000 MW of offshore turbine alone would require removing some 65,000,000 tons of ore and overlying rock. That doesn’t include copper for marine cables, transmission lines, transformers and other equipment – or the other metals and minerals.

It is inconceivable that these deepwater wind turbine systems could ever recoup all the energy and costs – or offset all the greenhouse gas emissions – involved in building them, no matter how many years they generate electricity. Indeed, those years may be very short, due to violent storms and constant salt spray. 

It’s equally inconceivable that they could survive major storms. As a deepwater oil production expert explained, the major unexamined issue is the enormous dynamic loads the mooring systems impart on support structures and turbines.

Floating offshore structures are designed to move on their mooring systems, to adjust for wind and waves. But if 115–160 mph winds hit the structures and equipment on their decks, they can be pushed to the limits of survivability. That’s what happened to the Mars TLP rig during Hurricane Katrina.

Some of its mooring lines (tethers) failed, the entire rig was pushed over onto its side, and the 200-foot-tall derrick snapped off and sank. Subsequent analysis found it was not the high winds that caused the failure, but the total structure’s return motion – its restorative forces or “whiplash” – as the wind speeds suddenly dropped from 126 mph, with gusts of 200 mph, to 15 mph.

Now picture 850-foot-tall turbines, with huge blades designed to catch the breezes, atop enormous semisubmersible platforms, being caught in a hurricane or other fierce storm; being pushed over further and further; until wind speeds suddenly plummet, and the turbines whiplash violently – and snap off.

That Shell Oil, among the world’s most experienced offshore oil developers, has dropped out of deepwater wind projects should say a lot about the viability of the far-fetched deepwater schemes Team Biden is promoting, to forcibly transform America’s energy and economic system.

That some companies are still in the game underscores how their risks are being forcibly subsidized and underwritten by taxpayers and consumers, who are being dragooned into these schemes by politicians and bureaucrats who likewise have no real skin in the game. Their leasing bids are plummeting, their electricity price demands soaring.

It’s time to say, “Enough! We’re going to keep our nuclear and fossil fuel energy, until you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your alternatives provide equally abundant, reliable, affordable energy.”

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor to the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org)  and author of books and articles on energy, environmental, climate and human rights issues.