The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) summarizes some major Obama Administration regulations (economically significant rules that impose annual costs of $100 million or more) that are soon to be released. These are largely rules written earlier this year but held up because they were potential liabilities for the Obama presidential campaign. Now that he has won re-election, its Katy bar the door. This posting will feature those that affect energy. There are others that will also have a very big impact such as Obamacare. The WSJ’s summary of those can be seen by clicking here.
The Obama Administration’s war on fossil fuels goes on. Fracking is not safe even though it has the potential of lifting the economy out of the dole drums. One has to wonder where the President’s priorities lie. Is it bring about a recovery or to bring about a socialist state?
The WSJ Energy Rules Summary:
• Energy. In the lead-up to November, the Environmental Protection Agency stood down under White House pressure, delaying rules for ozone air quality and industrial boilers, and deferring carbon standards. Now EPA chief Lisa Jackson has the run of the place.
She will resume the Administration’s anti-carbon agenda through “new source performance standards,” which will set greenhouse gas emissions for new power plants so low as to prevent their construction. Look for this early in 2013.
She’ll follow with standards for “existing” sources that make coal-fired plants uneconomic to run. Inside of a decade, Ms. Jackson may wipe out what used to make up more than half of U.S. power generation. Environmentalists will write books about it, even if her agenda has received almost no public scrutiny or debate.
The oil and gas industry is also targeted, hydraulic fracturing (fracking) in particular. The EPA has already issued a rule on shale production emissions and has one coming on diesel fuel in fracking. The Interior Department is promulgating rules on fracking on federal lands, and other rules can’t be far behind, probably using the pretext of drinking water under the Clean Water Act.
The EPA’s sleeper issue is the National Enforcement Initiatives agenda, which is designed to use the agency’s existing legal powers for inspections, requests for information, penalties and so forth to make new de facto rules. The EPA now blackmails businesses into “super compliance,” or settlements far more stringent than the law requires, or else risk years of expensive litigation.
The pitch by the locals is:
La Jolla Cove is San Diego’s most desirable spot for kayaking, snorkeling and diving. The water is calm and ecologically protected, providing a safe home for colorful garibaldi, yellowtail, rays and even leopard sharks. Because the water is protected, surfboards, boogie boards and other floatation devices are not permitted.”
The “ecologically protected” part has generated a stench that can be smelled a mile away. It seems that cormorants and seagulls use a rocky area by the cove, now fenced off, to move their bowels. The feces keep piling up and are creating a “gross everyday problem for the cove area” according to an editorial by the U-T San Diego paper. The city says they can’t do anything because :”… complex environmental rules stemming for the cove’s designation as a state-protected “Area of Special Biological Significance” are preventing them from cleaning up the place”. Further the city officials say that: “… it could take two years to get various state agencies to OK cleaning procedures.” Cleaning procedures? To clean up poop? Get a grip.
Talk about unintended consequences. I sure that the people of the La Jolla Cove felt really good about themselves as they were showing all of California, if not the world, how caring they are.
Here’s a deal for you. Its called extending the Production Tax Credit (PTC) for one year. For $12.2 billion you can prevent the loss of 37,000 jobs. That translates into a cost of $330,000 per job saved. And you also get expensive, unreliable wind generated electricity as part of the deal. Now who is it that thinks we should take this deal? Let’s see, oh yes, it is the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA). By-the-way, you will have to do this deal again the next year and the one after that and……..
Two good posts accounting for the past and recent CO2 emissions (man-made only, no natural CO2 emissions included).
The first posting has charts prepared by Ed Hoskins and appeared on the WUWT website.
This chart shows that China is now the no. 1 source of man-made CO2 emissions. Other charts illustrating change in emissions since 1965 can be seen by clicking here.
Another interesting posting is that the US has, over the past six years, reduced its carbon emissions more than any other nation in the world. This did not happen because of the Kyoto Protocol. It occured due to a combination of factors, e.g., natural gas replacing coal, improved efficiency and lower output resulting from the recession. Remember that the recession has been a common factor for virtually all nations. More about this can be read in a posting by Jack Spencer on the CAPCOM Michigan Capitol Confidential website titled “Shhh, US leads World in Carbon Emissions Reductions” Click here to read more. It has not been a result of the installation of alternative energy sources.
Friends of Science list 10 reasons disproving the myths of man-made global warming. I can not improve on their list so here it is in its entirety:
COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING
MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.
FACT: The HadCRUT3 surface temperature index shows warming to 1878, cooling to 1911, warming to 1941, cooling to 1964, warming to 1998 and cooling through 2011. The warming rate from 1964 to 1998 was the same as the previous warming from 1911 to 1941. Satellites, weather balloons and ground stations all show cooling since 2001. The mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8 C over the 20th century is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas (“heat islands”), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas (“land use effects”). Two science teams have shown that correcting the surface temperature record for the effects of urban development would reduce the warming trend over land from 1980 by half.
There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.
MYTH 2: The “hockey stick” graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature decrease for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.
FACT: Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17th Century the “average global temperature” has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare.
The “hockey stick”, a poster boy of both the UN’s IPCC and Canada’s Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) released their 2012 edition of the World Energy Outlook (WEO) on Monday, 12 November 2012. The take-away from the report is:
The WEO finds that the extraordinary growth in oil and natural gas output in the United States will mean a sea-change in global energy flows. In the New Policies Scenario, the WEO’s central scenario, the United States becomes a net exporter of natural gas by 2020 and is almost self-sufficient in energy, in net terms, by 2035. North America emerges as a net oil exporter, accelerating the switch in direction of international oil trade, with almost 90% of Middle Eastern oil exports being drawn to Asia by 2035.
The new oil and natural gas production in the US will not only result in lower domestic prices for gasoline, electricity and heating oil, it could result in delivering our nation from the endless traumata that are the turbulent Middle-Eastern nations. Will we feel it necessary to defend shipping routes any more? Will we need to provide F-16 fighter planes to Saudia Arabia? I wonder if the European or perhaps the Saudis, are becoming nervous thinking that they might have to do for themselves what we have been doing for them. Maybe the Chinese will take up the slack. I’m not sure that is a comforting thought.
Posted in AGW, Alternative Energy, CO2, Energy Development, fossil fuels, Fracking/Shale Gas, Global Temperatures, Middle East Resources, Nuclear Energy, Oil and Gas Exploration, solar cells, Windpower
Sixteen Fisker Karmas, hybrid autos, caught fire as an aftermath of the storm Sandy. Fisker’s press release concerning the fires follows:
“It was reported today that several Fisker Karmas were damaged by fire at the Port of Newark after being submerged in sea water during Superstorm Sandy. We can report that there were no injuries and none of the cars were being charged at the time.
“We have confidence in the Fisker Karma and safety is our primary concern. While we intend to find the cause as quickly as possible, storm damage has restricted access to the port.”
As you can see from the picture the damage was total:
Photo courtesy of Jalopnik.com