January 2011 Climate Change Summary Report

‘Path Clears for Deep-Water Drilling’

January 4, 2011: The Wall Street Journal reports: “Deep-water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico could resume within weeks under a policy announced Monday by the Obama administration, which has come under increasing criticism from the oil industry and politicians in the region over the impact of the drilling halt. … The administration said Monday that it would clear the path for 13 companies, including Chevron Corp. and Royal Dutch Shell PLC, to resume work on a handful of wells that were already approved and under way when the moratorium took effect. The 16 projects must still comply with strict new safety rules announced after the Deepwater Horizon disaster, but in most cases won’t be subjected to new environmental reviews.  The announcement means that some drilling could resume in a matter of weeks, although the exact timing remains unclear. But the policy doesn’t affect the more than a dozen permit requests that were pending when the moratorium took effect or have been filed since. Those must still undergo enhanced environmental reviews. … The administration has come under increasing pressure from Republicans and some Gulf Coast Democrats to allow drilling to resume.”

As High Gas Prices Loom, Congress Faces Pressure

January 5, 2011: Greenwire reported yesterday: “Party leaders in the new Congress have yet to unveil their full agenda, but lobbyists and observers see one issue they’ll likely confront: what to do about rising gas prices. Pump prices jumped over the past six weeks, and some experts predict they will continue climbing. … While several energy economists and forecasters disagree with that prediction, it foreshadows the kind of rhetoric the new Congress will face, several people said. Oil companies and their trade group are rolling out a campaign to push for more production, said Tyson Slocum, director of Public Citizen’s Energy Program. … With climate legislation almost certainly off the table in the upcoming Congress, gas prices could become the lever that forces action on energy, one energy lobbyist said. … If gas prices keep increasing, Republicans probably will make a push on increased fossil fuel production, said Ken Green, resident scholar with the American Enterprise Institute think tank. … Many GOP lawmakers and oil companies already have criticized what they call a de facto moratorium on deepwater drilling.”

‘GOP Sharpens Three-Pronged Legislative Strategy To Overturn EPA Rules’

January 6, 2011: Inside EPA reported yesterday: “The new Republican House majority in the 112th Congress is crafting a three-pronged strategy to challenge what it sees as costly EPA regulations, planning a series of Congressional Review Act (CRA) votes to undo rules, proposed spending cuts to prevent the implementation of regulations, and aggressive oversight to highlight rules’ costs, sources say. Rep. John Carter (R-TX), secretary of the House GOP Conference, will lead efforts to move CRA resolutions that require a majority vote in both chambers to disapprove a final EPA regulation. Carter is already planning to this week reintroduce a resolution to undo EPA’s recent strict air rules for the cement sector, and vowing more such moves. Meanwhile, the battle over funding for EPA to implement its rules will take place in the House Appropriations Committee, where new chairman Hal Rogers (R-KY) plans to soon introduce a major rescission package that could include steep cuts in funding for EPA, which could make it difficult to fully implement all rules. The third part of the strategy will be oversight into EPA regulations, with key House chairmen such as Oversight & Government Reform’s Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Energy & Commerce’s Fred Upton (R-MI) reaching out to key industries and lining up potential witnesses for oversight hearings slated to begin as soon as this month. … But these sources also remain doubtful about what the GOP will be able to achieve with its legislative strategy, noting that Democrats control the Senate and President Obama would likely veto legislation that drastically undercuts his agenda. … As secretary of the Republican conference, Carter is guaranteed one hour of floor time at the start of each week Congress is in session, time he intends to use to highlight economically cumbersome regulations and argue on behalf of his CRA resolutions to overturn them.”

Envoy: Kyoto Not a Model for Future

January 6, 2011: ClimateWire reports: “A climate change treaty won’t be possible until India, China and other emerging economies agree to take legally binding commitments, U.S. Deputy Envoy Jonathan Pershing said yesterday. Speaking at the Center for Strategic and International Studies about the U.N. climate conference last month in Cancun, Mexico, Pershing hailed the set of agreements yielded there enabling countries to make voluntary emission cuts. … The agreements also leave the future of the Kyoto Protocol murky. Yesterday, Pershing went out of his way to criticize the 1997 treaty, which requires only industrialized nations to cut greenhouse gas emissions. The United States is not a party to Kyoto. … But he also pointed out that India and China were clear in Cancun that their countries were not ready to take binding climate commitments. The United States, he said flatly, will not entertain a treaty that does not include all major economies — making the notion pushed by most developing countries that the United States should ‘go first’ a non-starter. … Meanwhile, Pershing successfully dodged questions about how the United States will keep the promise President Obama made to the world of cutting emissions 17 percent below 2005 levels this decade and more than 80 percent by midcentury. The United States also promised to help mobilize $100 billion annually by 2020, yet the question of where the money will come from remains an open one.”

‘Greenhouse-Gas Rules Targeted by Lawmakers’

January 7, 2011: The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday: “U.S. lawmakers are moving fast to try to block the Obama administration from regulating greenhouse gases. It has been just one day since the start of the new Congress and lawmakers have already introduced at least four bills to cripple or altogether block the administration from working on greenhouse-gas standards. Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D., W.Va.) got the ball rolling in the U.S. Senate Thursday with a bill that prevents the Environmental Protection Agency from enforcing its greenhouse-gas requirements for two years. Mr. Rockefeller introduced a similar piece of legislation last year, saying that Congress should be the government body to develop a global-warming policy—and not the EPA. He gathered dozens of supporters but his bill was never brought to the floor for a vote. Meanwhile, in the House, Marsha Blackburn (R., Tenn.) proposed a bill Wednesday that blocks the EPA from regulating carbon dioxide and other greenhouse-gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. Rep. Ted Poe (R., Texas) introduced legislation that same day that prevents the EPA from receiving funding for any type of cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gases. On Thursday, Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R., W.Va.) announced a bill to suspend the EPA’s work on greenhouse gases for two years. … The incoming chairman of the House’s powerful energy committee—and, therefore, one of the most influential lawmakers in developing legislation on greenhouse gases—has not yet proposed any bills. … Environmental groups were nevertheless surprised at the speed with which lawmakers introduced bills to stop the EPA.”

‘Asia’s Climate Steps Could Delay Global CO₂ Market’

January 7, 2011: Reuters reports: “Asia’s powerhouse economies are turning cautious on national plans to price emissions and instead pursuing incremental steps that could delay a global carbon offset market. Pressures from business and uncertainty over the shape of a U.N. climate pact mean the region will be reluctant to impose steep carbon costs while competitors such as the United States struggle to take action on emissions caps. Asia is opening doors to trade carbon or energy efficiency certificates and promoting investment in renewables at the local level, which analysts say in a positive development though not ideal. … Beijing may also outline market-based steps for emissions trading and top coal exporter Australia has pledged to introduce a price on carbon this year. But pushback from businesses fearing higher costs has delayed efforts in Japan and South Korea. … Japan is developing its own bilateral offset program to encourage Japanese firms to invest in clean-energy programs in poorer nations to generate carbon credits for trading at home. … But according to a global survey of steel and cement executives late last year by consultancy Accenture, many executives expressed fears that unconnected carbon policies could push polluting industries to shift to nations with no carbon limits. … He also pointed to the possibility of Chinese emissions trading steps eventually linking up with Europe.”

Republican Appropriator Takes Aim at ‘Scary’ EPA

January 10, 2011: The Hill reports: “The newly announced chairman of the House panel that crafts Environmental Protection Agency spending bills signaled Friday that he will seek to scale back the agency’s regulatory powers. Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) is chairman of the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies subcommittee of the full Appropriations Committee. He was the ranking GOP member of the panel in the last Congress. Simpson’s office, in a statement, said he will be ‘tasked with reducing spending levels that have grown out of control in recent years under Democrat control,’ and that Simpson has his ‘eyes set on EPA’ in particular. ‘The EPA is the scariest agency in the federal government, an agency run amok,’ Simpson said in a statement Friday. … Funding restrictions on appropriations bills are one avenue that GOP lawmakers are eyeing to prevent implementation of EPA greenhouse gas rules. Simpson’s statement Friday didn’t provide specifics, but the Idaho congressman has supported past efforts to scuttle EPA’s emissions regulations. Simpson also co-sponsored legislation this week that would strip EPA’s power to regulate greenhouse gases.”

‘Much-Touted Cellulosic Ethanol is Late in Making Mandated Appearance’

January 11, 2011: ClimateWire reports: “A projected shortfall in the production of an important green energy alternative could hurt U.S. efforts to move away from fossil fuels, a ClimateWire analysis has found. U.S. EPA figures indicate that in the second half of 2010, not a drop of cellulosic ethanol — a much-touted fuel that taps the sugars from farm wastes and other non-food sources of biomass — was commercially blended with gasoline. … ‘There was definitely some [cellulosic ethanol] produced, but I’d estimate far less than even 1 million gallons,’ said Brown. The federally mandated renewable fuel standard (RFS), however, called for production of 5 million gallons in 2010 — and that was after EPA took stock of the nascent industry’s capabilities and lowered the bar from the earlier congressional target of 100 million gallons. … Any gap between the required 2010 value and the true figures, however, could spell trouble for blenders striving to meet the 2011 fuel standard requirements. It could also further exacerbate concerns about meeting the 2022 RFS targets. … Blenders that come up short on meeting their share of that 5-million-gallon goal have a few ways to stay out of the red. … Only a handful of pilot projects in the United States currently produce cellulosic biofuel, and they are not focused on selling it commercially. As research and development plants, they do not operate at full capacity, and thus production costs, on a per-gallon basis, are steep.”

EPA Faces Tough Climate in Senate

January 12, 2011: Politico reports: “The Environmental Protection Agency is desperate for some friends in the Senate. Republicans have made unraveling the Obama administration’s climate rules one of their top priorities this year, and with the GOP-led House expected to easily pass a measure to handcuff EPA’s authority, the rules’ fate may be determined by how hard the agency’s champions in the Senate will fight. At least 56 senators — just four short of the 60 needed to overcome a filibuster — will most likely support measures to hamstring climate rules, and an additional eight votes may be in play this Congress, a POLITICO analysis shows. … EPA’s longtime supporters are preparing for the showdown. … A group of Senate Democrats intends to hold weekly meetings to discuss plans to fend off attacks on the EPA, said Senate Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.). The meetings will center on ‘protecting the public, to make sure that they don’t do anything to weaken the Clean Air Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Clean Water Act; to make sure that they don’t stop the states from their work in protecting the public from carbon and other pollutants.’ Many of the Democrats expected to attend those sessions held weekly meetings last year on efforts to pass the climate bill that collapsed in the Senate and is expected to remain on ice for at least the next two years. … The outcome of a vote to limit EPA’s authority on climate ultimately may depend on how much political capital Democratic leadership and the White House are willing to invest.”

 ‘Much-Touted Cellulosic Ethanol is Late in Making Mandated Appearance’

January 12, 2011: ClimateWire reports: “A projected shortfall in the production of an important green energy alternative could hurt U.S. efforts to move away from fossil fuels, a ClimateWire analysis has found. U.S. EPA figures indicate that in the second half of 2010, not a drop of cellulosic ethanol — a much-touted fuel that taps the sugars from farm wastes and other non-food sources of biomass — was commercially blended with gasoline. … ‘There was definitely some [cellulosic ethanol] produced, but I’d estimate far less than even 1 million gallons,’ said Brown. The federally mandated renewable fuel standard (RFS), however, called for production of 5 million gallons in 2010 — and that was after EPA took stock of the nascent industry’s capabilities and lowered the bar from the earlier congressional target of 100 million gallons. … Any gap between the required 2010 value and the true figures, however, could spell trouble for blenders striving to meet the 2011 fuel standard requirements. It could also further exacerbate concerns about meeting the 2022 RFS targets. … Blenders that come up short on meeting their share of that 5-million-gallon goal have a few ways to stay out of the red. … Only a handful of pilot projects in the United States currently produce cellulosic biofuel, and they are not focused on selling it commercially. As research and development plants, they do not operate at full capacity, and thus production costs, on a per-gallon basis, are steep.”

Chavez: Venezuela Raises Oil Reserves

January 13, 2011: AP reports: “President Hugo Chavez said Venezuela has dramatically increased its oil reserves and is now the world leader. Some experts, however, said the new figures are inflated and that Venezuela’s oil industry is suffering serious problems. Chavez said Tuesday night that officials certified vast deposits of heavy crude in the Orinoco River basin in December, and that ‘we have reached 253 billion’ barrels of oil. Saudi Arabia has said in recent years that it has proven reserves of more than 260 billion barrels of oil. Last May, the Venezuelan government said its proven reserves stood at 172 billion barrels. Gustavo Coronel, an energy consultant and former executive of state oil company Petroleos de Venezuela SA, said such a quick increase is technically impossible. … He said that for oil deposits to count as proven reserves they must be recoverable within a reasonable period of time, and that much of the heavy crude in the Orinoco region is not. … Jorge Pinon, an energy expert at Florida International University in Miami, said that Venezuela’s state oil company has suffered from a lack of adequate technology and investment, hurting oil output in recent years.”

U.S. Official: Global Emissions Targets Unrealistic

January 18, 2011: Greenwire reported Friday: “International climate negotiations may be hinged on an unrealistic goal, a U.S. intelligence official who provides analyses to President Obama and top U.S. climate negotiators said yesterday. At an off-the-record briefing at the Pew Charitable Trusts’ Washington, D.C., offices, the official said his estimates indicate that reducing global emissions to achieve a limit of 450 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere — the metric at which U.N. negotiations are currently aimed — would be a monumental challenge given the current scarcity and unreliability of renewable energy sources. Instead, he said, a target of 550 or 650 ppm is beginning to be considered as a better near-term goal. … Drawing largely on public information, including calculations from the International Energy Agency, the intelligence analysis presented yesterday indicated that renewable energy is unlikely to make up more than a quarter of all energy consumed in the United States by 2030. It also referenced the IEA’s estimate that it would cost $11 trillion to achieve a limit of 450 ppm by 2030. … Legislative aides and policy advocates who attended said the presentation contained no new information and questioned some of the officials’ methods.”

‘Solar Power Eclipse’

January 19, 2011: From a Wall Street Journal editorial: “Not long ago, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick was calling Evergreen Solar a ‘symbol’ of his state’s economic future. … Evergreen announced last week that it is shutting its Massachusetts plant and will lay off 800 workers. That’s the same plant Mr. Patrick had state taxpayers fund in 2007 to the tune of $58 million in grants, loans and land and tax incentives—one of the largest investments in a private company in Bay State history. Remind us not to let the Governor pick our stock portfolio. … A look at the company’s finances shows it has lost a cumulative $685 million. … None of this fazed Mr. Patrick, who touted Evergreen as a cornerstone of his strategy to turn Massachusetts into a hub of green energy innovation. Evergreen blames its plant closing on competition from subsidized Chinese manufacturers. … But Evergreen has also been subsidized in the multiple ways that federal and state governments favor solar power. … Bay State taxpayers are now stuck with the losses. Mr. Patrick says he intends to claw back some of that $58 million, but Evergreen says it doesn’t owe more than $4 million. … All of this adds up to one more case study in the perils of politically allocated capital. Like President Obama, Mr. Patrick has advertised the illusion that governments can nurture new companies, even whole new industries, with targeted taxpayer ‘investments.’ This is the entire premise of the ‘clean energy’ industry, most of which wouldn’t exist without subsidies because it can’t compete on a market basis. Politicians always seem to show up for the green energy ribbon-cuttings but somehow they manage to miss the plant closings. Evergreen Solar is indeed a ‘symbol’—of the folly of taxpayer green subsidies.”

‘Buzz Builds for “Clean Energy” Standard, but Passage Won’t be Easy’

January 20, 2011: E&E Daily reports: “Legislation advancing clean energy at first glance seems like a palatable option for a divided Congress, a kind of combination plate enticing lawmakers with varied morsels. Key lawmakers from both parties praise the idea and lobbying efforts are starting. But the clean energy proposals now gaining buzz could be too ambitious for this Congress to stomach. … Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has said that he plans to offer a CES bill. The Republican plans to talk with Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska), who has shown interest in working on a measure. … There is also support outside of Congress. … But passing a bill likely will be very difficult, analysts and political consultants said. To attract Republican votes, they said, any energy mandate needs to include nuclear power and coal with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) as options, the very elements likely to repel some Democrats. If natural gas is included in a CES, the measure would push utilities away from coal, analysts said. Coal has strong backing in both the House and Senate. … Battles could erupt over whether a CES bill should block U.S. EPA from regulating the largest emitters of greenhouse gases, a move many Republicans and businesses want but that some Democrats and environmentalists oppose. There are also some issues about whether House Republicans will back any government mandate and how to fund incentives. Many Republicans and conservative Democrats want to pare government spending. Republican Rep. Fred Upton of Michigan, chairman of the House Energy and commerce Committee, likely would need to back CES for it to move forward in that chamber. A CES that imposes a fuel choice requirement on utilities could have a tough time winning his approval. … One of the thorniest issues in assembling a CES could be deciding what is ‘clean.’”

‘U.S. Expands Use of Higher Ethanol Gasoline to 60% of Cars’

January 24, 2011: Reuters reports: “The Environmental Protection Agency on Friday expanded the number of vehicles allowed to use gasoline containing higher levels of corn-based ethanol, a move the automobile industry and food producers fear will raise costs.  The agency cleared gasoline containing 15 percent ethanol, up from 10 percent, for vehicles built from 2001 to 2006. The EPA approved in October so-called E15 gasoline for cars and trucks built in 2007 and later, so now the fuel can be used to power more than 60 percent the cars and trucks on U.S. roads. … Already some 40 percent of the U.S. corn crop goes to make ethanol, and the fuel has helped spur prices on commodity markets. However, service station owners are worried that putting higher ethanol blends in older cars could lead to lawsuits if the fuel damages their engines. The industry will also have to pay for new blender pumps and storage tanks to sell E15, which could slow adoption of the fuel. The EPA said it is still reviewing public comment for an E15 label that would be put on gasoline pumps to make sure consumers don’t use the wrong fuel. With world food prices soaring, livestock feeders and food makers also fear that E15 gasoline will push up corn prices because of increased demand from ethanol makers for the grain.

‘Climate Change: Dogs of Law Are Off the Leash’

January 24, 2011: AFP reports: “From being a marginal and even mocked issue, climate-change litigation is fast emerging as a new frontier of law where some believe hundreds of billions of dollars are at stake. Compensation for losses inflicted by man-made global warming would be jaw-dropping, a payout that would make tobacco and asbestos damages look like pocket money. … In the past three years, the number of climate-related lawsuits has ballooned, filling the void of political efforts in tackling greenhouse-gas emissions. Eyeing the money-spinning potential, some major commercial law firms now place climate-change litigation in their Internet shop window. But legal experts sound a note of caution, warning that this is a new and mist-shrouded area of justice. Many obstacles lie ahead before a Western court awards a cent in climate damages and even more before the award is upheld on appeal. … The majority of these cases touch on regulatory issues and access to information, which can have many repercussions for coal, gas and oil producers and big carbon-emitting industries such as steel and cement. … Gerrard and others pointed out some of the dilemmas for establishing liability, starting with the fact that fossil fuels are used, by all of us, in complete legality. And a molecule of CO2 is no respecter of national boundaries. … Then there is the business of distinguishing between weather and climate. … Two other big cases touching on liability have gone to the Supreme Court to adjudicate on competence. In the most eagerly-awaited case, whose ruling is expected by the end of June, the state of Connecticut is demanding an injunction against major power companies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.”

‘Obama SOTU Attack on Oil Will Destroy Jobs’

January 26, 2011: From a National Journal Energy & Environment Expert Blog post by NPRA President Charlie Drevna: “In his State of the Union address, President Obama was right to set job creation and economic growth as top priorities, but wrong to advocate policies that would do the exact opposite. If his attack demonizing the petroleum industry succeeds it will destroy jobs instead of creating them, raise costs for consumers instead of lowering them, and require billions in taxpayer dollars to fund unending subsidies for untested technologies unable to survive on their own. It makes no sense to destroy existing jobs held by hard-working Americans today in hopes of creating new jobs that may never materialize tomorrow. We need to grow our economy and increase the number of jobs, not simply try to shift jobs from one sector to another. Throughout history, government efforts to create economic winners and losers – no matter how well-intentioned – have been disappointments, and have been far less effective than the decisions consumers make with their buying power in a free market. Our nation should learn from the mistakes and failures of other nations that tried to control their economies. America’s petroleum refiners and petrochemical companies are high-tech manufacturers that provide jobs for more than 2 million Americans directly and indirectly, make modern life possible and strengthen our economic and national security. We stand ready to help our nation and our fellow citizens return to prosperity.”

‘Obama Calls for New Clean-Energy Investments’

January 26, 2011: The Wall Street Journal reports: “President Barack Obama made a big push for clean energy Tuesday, saying the nation should develop 80% of its electricity from clean sources by 2035 and pursue a raft of research and development projects to be financed by killing $4 billion in annual tax subsidies for oil, gas and other fossil-fuel producers. Mr. Obama’s emphasis on renewable-energy investment marks a shift away from efforts to develop a comprehensive global-warming policy with Congress, reflecting political reality and Republican opposition to the greenhouse-gas regulations. The prime-time focus on clean energy underscores the White House’s belief that domestic production of wind, solar and other types of clean energy—as well as innovative technologies that make them cheaper and more reliable—could provide jobs in a weak economy and reduce the country’s dependence on fossil fuels. The president will say his 2012 budget would increase clean-energy technology funding by one-third when compared with the prior year, or to about $8 billion. … The president will say his budget would include consumer rebates and other incentives for electric vehicles, aimed at putting one million advanced technology vehicles on the road by 2015. Mr. Obama’s plan also calls for a sizable increase in government-funded research and development, focused in part on getting the cost of solar energy down to $1 a watt. … The Obama administration faces a tougher challenge, however, when it comes to developing and enforcing new standards for fossil fuels, which can be cheaper and easier to use than alternative energy sources. In what has become an oft-quoted mantra, business leaders accuse the administration of passing regulations that kill jobs in a tough economy. … There have been recent signs that Mr. Obama is willing to take a closer look at the impact of federal rules—and particularly, the impact of environmental rules—on the job market. Earlier this month, the president signed an executive order that requires federal agencies to review outdated rules that hurt job creation. Last night, on the eve of the president’s address, Carol Browner stepped down as the White House’s climate and energy czar. Ms. Browner was known for her work on a climate bill and her departure was seen as sign the president could soften his approach to environmental rules.”

Senate Republicans Introduce Bills to Block EPA Climate Rules

January 27, 2011: The Hill reports: “The scores of Senate bills introduced Tuesday include a measure to block Environmental Protection climate change rules, and there’s more to come. Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) introduced a bill to ‘prohibit the regulation of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States until China, India, and Russia implement similar reductions,’ according to the Congressional Record. There’s more en route. Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) is planning a bill that would broadly prevent EPA and other federal agencies from addressing greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and other statutes. Bills to completely nullify EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases are highly unlikely to clear the Senate. But some lawmakers — led by Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) — are hoping to pass legislation that would delay regulation of power plants, refiners and other sources for two years. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) told reporters Tuesday that he plans to co-sponsor Rockefeller’s forthcoming bill, which Rockefeller also pushed last year but failed to get to the floor.”

EPA Ethanol Decision Hardens Divide

January 27, 2011: SolveClimate News reports: “A fracture between pro- and anti-ethanol forces seems to be widening into a gorge now that the EPA has expanded the fuel’s reach in the transportation sector. On one side, business, environmental, budget watchdog and public interest organizations are castigating the Environmental Protection Agency’s recent decision to allow vehicles manufactured between 2001 and 2006 to use gasoline containing 15 percent ethanol. On the other side, the Renewable Fuels Association won’t be content until even older-model cars, trucks, minivans and sport utility vehicles are included in the E15 mix. The vituperative back-and-forth has spilled over to Capitol Hill where Oklahoma Republican Sen. Jim Inhofe, ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, is seeking an oversight hearing. … Opponents of Jackson’s line of thinking greeted her announcement with a chorus of jeers about the supposed benefits of corn ethanol. Not only does it spew more climate-damaging emissions than gasoline, they claim, but ethanol production takes land away from food production, raises food prices, encroaches on natural ecosystems, and pollutes water sources because it requires so much fertilizer. As well, they add, varying ethanol blends will puzzle drivers at the pump. … Farm state legislators such as Rep. Collin Peterson, a Minnesota Democrat, and Sen. Charles Grassley, an Iowa Republican, backed the EPA’s opening for E15. They aligned with Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, an Iowan who lauded increased ethanol production as a means for creating jobs in rural America, improving the nation’s energy security, protecting the environment and allowing the renewable fuels industry to mature. … But Inhofe, one of the Senate’s longest-serving climate change deniers, doesn’t see eye-to-eye with Grassley. He has questioned ethanol’s compatibility with existing engines, its transportation and infrastructure needs, its economic sustainability and its environmental and public health impacts. … Inhofe said he plans to reintroduce legislation addressing the lack of availability of ethanol-free gasoline.”

‘Cap and Trade Returns From the Grave’

January 28, 2011: From a Wall Street Journal column by Kimberley Strassel: “… The president presented his new, conciliatory face to the nation this week, and his State of the Union was as notable for what it didn’t include as what it did… Listen carefully to Mr. Obama’s speech and you realize he spent plenty of it on carbon controls. … The official end of cap and trade, and Mrs. Browner, wasn’t conciliation—it was necessity. The public now understands that cap and trade is an economy killer, and no small number of Democrats lost their seats in midterms for supporting it. … But Mr. Obama has no intention of letting go of his carbon-free world. … Specifically, he called in his speech for the nation to ‘join’ him in a ‘new goal: by 2035, 80% of America’s electricity will come from clean energy sources.’ What the president was in essence calling for—in happier, fuzzier, broader language—is what policy wonks refer to as a ‘renewable portfolio standard.’ … It’s also cap and trade by another name. Consider: The goal of cap and trade is to impose crushing taxes on fossil fuels—oil, coal, natural gas—thereby forcing utilities to switch to costly renewables. Under Mr. Obama’s new proposal, the government skips the tax part and outright requires the use of costly renewables. The result is the same: dramatically higher energy prices, from carbon-free sources. … Many Republicans understand the situation. Michigan Rep. Fred Upton, chair of House Energy and Commerce, put out a statement following the speech that insisted ‘the answer is not to hyper-subsidize preferred industries or to force consumers and job creators to purchase energy they can’t afford.’ … Then again, some Republicans—the self-styled energy progressives—have let it be known they’d be open to a new government diktat, if only the price is right. … Here’s to betting that if and when the president’s ‘clean energy’ standard kicks in, the only mandated sources utilities have to choose from are wind, solar and biofuels. The GOP has spent some long, sometimes uncomfortable, years explaining the perils of cap and trade. Yet they risk getting the same policy, all because they’ve yet to find the moxy to resist the ‘clean energy’ drumbeat.”

‘Ban Ki-moon Ends Hands-On Involvement in Climate Change Talks’

January 28, 2011: The Guardian (UK) reports: “Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations secretary general who made global warming his personal mission, is ending his hands-on involvement with international climate change negotiations, the Guardian has learned. In a strategic shift, Ban will redirect his efforts from trying to encourage movement in the international climate change negotiations to a broader agenda of promoting clean energy and sustainable development, senior UN officials said. The officials said the change in focus reflected Ban’s realisation, after his deep involvement with the failed Copenhagen summit in 2009, that world leaders are not prepared to come together in a sweeping agreement on global warming – at least not for the next few years. … The view from UN headquarters will likely dismay developing countries who fought hard at Copenhagen and last year’s summit at Cancun for countries to renew their commitments to the Kyoto protocol in just that type of grand deal. UN officials say Ban will no longer be deeply involved in the negotiations leading up to the next big UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, meeting at Durban in December 2011. … Ban will focus on broader issues of sustainability, which will be in the spotlight at a summit in Rio de Janeiro in 2012, marking 20 years since the first Earth summit.”

Exxon: Global Gasoline Demand to Fall

January 28, 2011: AP reports: “Exxon expects there to be 400 million more cars on the world’s roads 20 years from now. Yet gasoline consumption will decline because of gains in fuel efficiency. The annual energy outlook from the world’s biggest investor-owned oil and gas company also predicts that energy use overall will grow 35 percent by 2030. But that growth would be three times higher if people used as much energy per capita as they do now. Nowhere is that more apparent than in projections of gasoline demand. People in developing countries, especially China, will drive millions of more cars, but they’ll use fuel more efficiently than cars of the past. Exxon Mobil Corp. sees demand for gasoline dropping 20 percent in the U.S. and by one third in Europe by 2020.”

‘Administration Lays Out Clean-Energy Agenda’

January 31, 2011: National Journal reports: “Following up on President Obama’s emphasis on clean-energy innovation in his State of the Union address on Tuesday, administration officials today laid out an aggressive agenda to tackle the challenge. ‘We are playing to win,’ Energy Secretary Steven Chu said, arguing that the U.S. ‘innovation machine is matchless to anywhere else in the world. We can … outcompete any country.’ … Unrest in the Middle East, such as the riots erupting in Tunisia and Egypt, will ‘have real harm for the price’ of oil in the world market, Chu added. The best way for America to protect itself, he asserted, is to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and diversify our energy supply. … He outlined the energy initiatives highlighted in the State of the Union, starting with the president’s target to produce 80 percent of U.S. energy from clean-energy sources by 2035; Chu said that the administration plans to work with Congress on defining this goal. ‘This is clean energy,’ the secretary said. ‘Not only wind and solar, but also nuclear, wind, hydro, and ‘clean coal’ with carbon-capture and sequestration.’ … Chu also discussed the administration’s push for biofuel and natural-gas production and development, along with efforts to bring down the cost of photovoltaics, one area in which China is swiftly speeding ahead of the world. Obama’s promise of putting a million electric vehicles on the road by 2015, Chu said, is also doable, with the Energy Department investing in research to develop batteries that can increase EV range from roughly 100 miles to nearly 400 miles.”

Administration: ‘Education Problem’ on Climate

January 31, 2011: The Hill reports: “President Obama’s top science adviser said there’s a need to ‘educate’ GOP climate change skeptics on Capitol Hill as the White House seeks to advance its green energy agenda. ‘It is an education problem. I think we have to educate them,’ said John Holdren, who heads the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, in an interview broadcast Sunday. Obama, in his State of the Union speech last week, called for deriving 80 percent of U.S. power from ‘clean’ sources by 2035, and funding increased R&D of green electricity and fuels by repealing billions of dollars in oil industry tax breaks. But the effort comes as a substantial number of GOP lawmakers, such as House Science, Space and Technology Committee Chairman Ralph Hall (R-Texas), are questioning climate science. … He said there is uncertainty about details, but noted that’s always the case in science. What’s plain, Holdren said, is that the climate is changing in damaging ways and that human activities – notably burning fossil fuels – are ‘overwhelmingly likely’ to be the primary cause.”

‘Will President Obama Raise the Gas Tax?’

January 31, 2011: From a Washington Post column by Stephen Stromberg: “How can you tell if a politician has a serious plan for eliminating the rampant irrationality of the federal budget? See whether he proposes policies that would have seriously good effects — but make for seriously bad politics. The hardest — and the most necessary — is slowing the fiscally deadly inflation of health-care costs. But another great example — a favorite that Charles Krauthammer and I share — is raising the federal gas tax. … On ‘Face the Nation’ Sunday, his new chief of staff, Richard Daley, rejected raising the gas tax, arguing that now isn’t the time to increase taxes. … The White House has been down on raising the gas tax before. But on Sunday Daley apparently didn’t rule out raising the gas tax in future years, perhaps as a way to fund investments in building and maintaining the country’s road, rail and energy infrastructure — not necessarily fulfilling Obama’s high-speed rail dreams, but there are plenty of far more basic things that need attention. … But, beyond raising money, the gas tax is most appealing for its other benefits. It’s one of the most effective energy policies out there for achieving many goals Americans claim to have — reducing dependence on foreign oil, cutting air pollution, undercutting unfriendly foreign petro-dictators. … In casual conversation, politicians and political aides across Washington admit that raising the gas tax is eminently rational. The Bowles-Simpson deficit commission just recommended a higher gas tax. … If that happens, Republicans will have a huge political incentive to attack the president on the gas tax, a fact to which Daley alluded Sunday. One has to hope that their expressed concern for the deficit eventually snaps them into reality, too.”