People who say they are concerned about climate change use more electricity than those who say the issue is ‘too far away to worry about’, government-commissioned study finds
People who claim to worry about climate change use more electricity than those who do not, a Government study has found.
Those who say they are concerned about the prospect of climate change consume more energy than those who say it is “too far into the future to worry about,” the study commissioned by the Department for Energy and Climate Change found.
That is in part due to age, as people over 65 are more frugal with electricity but much less concerned about global warming. Continue reading
President Obama has called inequality “the defining challenge of our time.” But on June 2 he will announce new “cap-and-trade” environmental regulations that will make the poor a lot poorer and the rich a little less rich.
Obama said in his January State of the Union Address: “Wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation to expand opportunity for more American families, that’s what I’m going to do.”
But these steps without legislation will reduce opportunities for the poorest Americans. Those in the lowest fifth of the income distribution spend 24 percent of their income on energy, compared with 4 percent for those in the top fifth. Mr. Obama’s new proposed cuts in carbon emissions, in the form of “cap-and-trade” proposals that were rejected by the Democratic House and Senate in the first two years of his presidency, will raise the cost of energy, particularly electricity, and hit the poor hardest. Continue reading
By Peter Roff
Does the “Oracle of Omaha” really need another tax break? It’s a fair question, given the way billionaire Warren Buffet made headlines several years ago with his complaints that his secretary paid more in taxes to the federal government than he did.
Of course, that was back when he was campaigning in support of higher taxes on the so-called “wealthiest Americans” in furtherance of the class envy strategy Democrats like himself, President Barack Obama and their allies in Washington have honed to a razor sharp edge. But now he’s got his hand out for corporate tax breaks that improve the bottom line for his Berkshire Hathaway company and the stock price of all the companies he’s invested in. Continue reading
by Peter Roff
It did not exactly come as a surprise when the Obama administration announced that it was pushing the decision regarding whether or not to go ahead with the Keystone XL pipeline off again. Politically, it’s a difficult issue, one that splits the left-liberal coalition that put him in the White House.
On one side are the so-called environmental groups who are opposed to keeping fossil fuels in the American energy mix. They think the completion of the pipeline, which will take oil from the Canadian tar sands south to the refineries located on the American Gulf Coast, will only add to the problems they have already imagined the productivity of mankind has created. On the other are congressional Democrats, private sector unions and energy company executives who also helped Obama come to power and who want the oil and the jobs the pipeline will bring. Continue reading
by Phil Kerpen
The decision to yet again delay the final permit for the popular Keystone XL pipeline was made not in the White House or at the State Department, but in a posh private residence in the Sea Cliff neighborhood in northwestern San Francisco. It was there on February 19 that former vice president Al Gore and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made the pilgrimage to Tom Steyer’s home to kiss the ring of the hedge fund-billionaire turned super-donor, in exchange for $400,000 that night and a promise of $100 million more to come. Steyer’s sole demand? Stop the pipeline.
There were six Senate Democrats present: Reid, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Ben Cardin of Maryland, Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, and Mark Udall of Colorado. All had voted against the pipeline in a test vote offered as a budget amendment last year, although 17 Democrats voted for the bipartisan measure. Continue reading
The White House held a “Solar Summit” Thursday, continuing to promote subsidies for solar panels just days after a new nonpartisan government report showed restrictions of drilling on federal lands.
The Energy Department announced another $15 million in “solar market pathways” to fund local governments’ use of solar energy. Further, the administration announced at the summit plans for a “Capital Solar Challenge,” directing federal agencies, military bases and other federally subsidized buildings to use solar power. Continue reading
Congressional negotiators reached a deal late Monday on a massive spending bill to fund the government for the rest of 2014, agreeing to undo last year’s cut to military retirement benefits and a list of other GOP demands in exchange for the higher spending levels.
But some of the most interesting action happened on the sidelines, where negotiators agreed to strict rules to prevent the Internal Revenue Service from targeting groups for ideological scrutiny, and specifically banning the agency from targeting citizens “for exercising any right guaranteed under the First Amendment.”
Negotiators also agreed to block the Obama administration from imposing standards that effectively would prohibit the sale of incandescent light bulbs. Continue reading
Americans will be feeling a new and unexpected pain of government overregulation before they vote in November. Yet, more than two-thirds of the public is currently unaware of what has the potential to be a serious 2014 election issue—representing more government intrusion and meddling with free markets, increased cost, loss of American jobs, and the elimination of choice.
The reality of Obama’s green-energy policies is going to hit home with your next light bulb purchase.
A recent study found that only 28 percent of Americans were aware of the 2007 law that unrealistically raised the minimum efficiency standards for light bulbs to the point where it effectively turned the 25-cent light bulb into contraband. “In its place,” reports CNS News, “alternative, costly and mercury-filled CFLs are manufactured in China, and incandescent factories in the US have been shuttered.” The last U.S. incandescent light bulb factory, in Winchester, VA, closed in September 2010 leaving 200 well-paid employees feeling that they’d been “sold out by the government.” Continue reading
George Landrith, President of Frontiers of Freedom, commended Congress for allowing the decades-old practice of wasting billions of taxpayer dollars subsidizing the wind industry to expire with the New Year.
“2013’s end marked the expiration of the investment and production tax credits for the wind industry. As we ring in the New Year, Congress took advantage of this opportunity and permanently ended these wasteful tax credits. These subsidies did nothing but hide the true costs of these projects, subsidized corporate rent seekers, and dramatically increased the cost of electricity for taxpayers.” Continue reading
by Michael Bastasch
Towns all over Britain are blowing millions of dollars on wind turbines that are generating almost no revenue and will take hundreds of years to pay for themselves, reports the UK Telegraph.
The Telegraph reports that UK localities are spending hundreds of pounds installing wind turbines in an effort to boost renewable energy generation and fight global warming.
“Some turbines generate so little energy they would take hundreds of years to repay their original value,” reports the Telegraph. “Experts argue that the failure of some wind turbines to recoup their value shows how small wind turbines are a poor way to generate renewable energy.” Continue reading
President Barack Obama has claimed his administration will “restore science to its rightful place,” but his policies are increasingly faith-based. Obama’s insistence on mandating alternative energy use, regardless of the real-world consequences, is just the latest example.
The president last week signed a memorandum directing the federal government to nearly triple its use of renewable energy sources for electricity by 2020. Under that directive, the government will be expected to get 20 percent of electricity from renewable sources, up from the previous goal of 7.5 percent.
We have nothing against alternative energy — wind, solar, whatever — but those energy sources haven’t overtaken fossil fuels for one simple reason: Alternative energy production costs more and is less reliable. Thus, Obama’s memo is ordering the federal government to spend more for less. Continue reading
by George Landrith
It is said that those who respect the law and enjoy sausage, should not see how either are made. Too often the farm bill is exhibit A for this adage. Too often such bills include a little something for everyone, or a lot of taxpayer cash for a privileged few. Such legislation picks the pocket of the taxpayer, and distorts the marketplace.
Part of the farm bill is invariably an energy provision which again all too often is simply a grab bag of taxpayer provided cash for energy or chemical projects that managed to lobby hard for the taxpayer-provided benefits. But it is doubtful that such programs actually benefit the nation as a whole. The Senate’s version of the farm bill is sadly yet another Exhibit A in wasteful spending and its energy provisions are simply more of the same.
The bipartisan House farm bill is different from the usual farm bill. It isn’t perfect, but it is a big step in the right direction. Continue reading
President Obama’s politically motivated, science-eschewing ethanol mandates ravage the environment in America’s heartland and the Gulf of Mexico while enabling the well-connected to reap windfall profits.
by Dina Cappiello & Matt Apuzzo
The hills of southern Iowa bear the scars of America’s push for green energy: The brown gashes where rain has washed away the soil. The polluted streams that dump fertilizer into the water supply.
Even the cemetery that disappeared like an apparition into a cornfield. It wasn’t supposed to be this way.
With the Iowa political caucuses on the horizon in 2007, presidential candidate Barack Obama made homegrown corn a centerpiece of his plan to slow global warming. And when President George W. Bush signed a law that year requiring oil companies to add billions of gallons of ethanol to their gasoline each year, Bush predicted it would make the country “stronger, cleaner and more secure.”
But the ethanol era has proven far more damaging to the environment than politicians promised and much worse than the government admits today. Continue reading
More people are employed in green energy than in fossil fuel energy. So says Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) in a recent speech, relying on numbers generated by researchers at the Brookings Institute and other places. Before the speech disappears down the memory hole, lets look a little bit at what these numbers mean.
It isn’t at all what the good Senator implies.
First off, while the numbers have been challenged by the usual suspects in the fossil fuel industry, let’s stipulate to them: Green energy employs 2.7 million people; only 2.4 million are employed in fossil fuels.
What the Senator doesn’t realize is that employing a lot of people is not the goal of energy production. We could employ a lot more people to supply energy if we went back to burning wood. Think of all the people we could employ to plant the trees, cut them down, chop them up, and deliver them to houses by horse-drawn carts. And instead of running air conditioners, we would employ a lot more people if we hired menials to wave palm fronds over us. Continue reading
The recent auction of 113,000 acres just off the coast of Virginia Beach, a popular tourist destination, may be a step forward for wind power in the state of Virginia, but it is several steps backwards for the taxpayers and consumers who will be forced to support it.
Wind energy has time and time again proven to be an unreliable means of producing electricity. Quite simply, electricity is only produced if the wind is blowing, and even then the amount is dependent on how strongly. A wind farm rated to produce up to 468 megawatts, such as the proposed Cape Wind project off of Nantucket Sound, will on average only produce an expected 174 megawatts. For power companies, this inefficiency can be a nightmare when trying to provide reliable power to a community. Continue reading