Voice For Liberty

Category: Environment

  • GPACE poll on Kansas energy

    Great Plains Alliance for Clean Energy recently released a poll that purportedly shows great interest in Kansas for clean energy sources. Looking at the poll, however, leads to little confidence in its results.

    Some of the results the poll produced are totally meaningless. For example: “Results show that most voters (almost two-thirds) think the price of coal will increase over the next 25 years.” Is this poll relying on Kansas voters as experts in coal futures? This result is probably more the result of the Kansas press repeatedly reporting the wishes of radical environmentalist groups.

    The poll also asks questions that produce results like this: “88% of Kansans feel that it is important that Kansas become energy independent by developing natural gas and wind resources that already exist in the state.”

    “Energy independent” sound like a good thing, doesn’t it? It conjures up the fear of the United States being reliant on Iran or Venezuela for its energy. But we’re not talking about enriching rogue countries. We’re talking about our neighbors in Colorado and Texas, for example. Have we declared a trade war with these states? We happily export beef, wheat, and airplanes to our neighboring states. What if Texas decided it didn’t want to be dependent on Kansas for airplanes?

    One of the poll questions asks Kansans how important it is that Kansas’ electricity production in the future “will help stimulate the state’s economy and create jobs.” The poll question doesn’t state this, but it clearly alludes to the environmentalist lobby’s mistaken belief that a switch in energy policy will create thousands of “green” jobs and drive the economy forward. Jobs will be created, to be sure. But wealth and prosperity, which is what we really want, will not be created.

    This green jobs myth is dangerous. Ask Spain. As reported in Green energy policies causing harm in Europe, each “green job” created in Spain cost $774,000. Academic Study Challenges Projections of Green Jobs provides additional information.

    The same question asks Kansans whether it’s important that future electricity sources “can be provided at a long term fixed price.” The future cost of the renewable energy sources that GPACE supports — wind and natural gas, mostly — can’t be predicted. They are both already much more expensive than coal, and their future cost is unknown. This question may be alluding to the threat of taxes or caps on carbon emissions. These policies will affect natural gas power production too, although to a lesser degree than coal.

    It is certain, however, that taxpayers will have to continue to subsidize wind power production, or it would not be used. But this poll didn’t ask a question like “should Kansas’ future energy policy include a power source that is so costly that it must be subsidized?”

    The same question also asks if it’s important to produce energy in a way that doesn’t cause climate change. Who wouldn’t agree with that? The question, however, ignores important factors of cost. There’s also the realization that anything we can do in Kansas is virtually meaningless in the context of the entire world, as shown in KEEP’s Goal is Predetermined and Ineffectual.

    As reported in other stories here, GPACE has a history of asking misleading questions. The results of this poll may be read by clicking on Wind Energy, Net Metering, and Kansas Energy Sources.

  • Green energy policies causing harm in Europe

    In their Washington Times article Lessons from Europe, Iain Murray, Gabriel Calzada, and Carlo Stagnaro warn us in the United States about “green” energy policies that have been implemented in Europe. These harmful policies are just like the ones we are considering here.

    The cap-and-trade system that’s been in place in Europe has done little to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. “The scheme has been repeatedly gamed and manipulated by industry and governments so that emissions have actually increased faster than the those of the United States, with none of the big reductions promised materializing.”

    Meanwhile, electricity bills are going up, and Europe has become more dependent on natural gas imports from Russia.

    Spain has gained experience with the costs of green jobs. Large government incentives meant that the renewable energy sector in Spain grew rapidly — at a large cost that taxpayers and consumers will continue to pay for a long time.

    Furthermore, it turns out that green jobs are expensive. Here’s what Bloomberg reported about a study released by one of the authors of the Times article:

    The premiums paid for solar, biomass, wave and wind power – – which are charged to consumers in their bills — translated into a $774,000 cost for each Spanish “green job” created since 2000, said Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at the university and author of the report.

    “The loss of jobs could be greater if you account for the amount of lost industry that moves out of the country due to higher energy prices,” he said in an interview.

    The Times article notes that “most of these ‘green jobs’ were transitory, anyhow, mostly connected with construction, not operation.” This is a common criticism made of the proposal to build a coal-fired power plant in Kansas. Yes, thousands of jobs will be created, but only for a year or two, say the critics. It turns out that green jobs have the same life cycle.

    It turns out that cap-and-trade has not worked out well for Europe. Neither has heavy government subsidy worked to create jobs at a cost that we can afford.

    We have to wonder, then, why President Obama is so committed to cap-and-trade in the United States.

    Furthermore, have outgoing Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius and soon-to-be governor Mark Parkinson thought of things like this?

  • Physics for future presidents is for all of us

    In the most unlikely of all cities, at the most unlikely of all universities, Richard A. Muller tries to a inject a dose of sanity into science, especially the debate over climate change.

    “Surrounded by tree-hugging academics at UC Berkeley, he dares to argue that coal and nuclear fission are good sources of energy.”

    The Forbes Magazine article A Berkeley professor dares to debunk the popular wisdom about the future of energy reports, and it’s essential reading. It explains his criticism of Al Gore and the New York Times’ Tom Friedman.

    The website supporting the Muller’s popular class Physics for future Presidents includes podcasts of lectures, and the complete chapter on climate change from the textbook. This easy-to-read-chapter presents a reasonable and balanced view of the science and some of the politics and economics of climate change.

    Global warming alarmists say that those who don’t agree with their doomsday scenarios are denying science. It turns out, however, that not all scientists agree, especially with the recommendations that will destroy our standard of living in America.

  • Academic Study Challenges Projections of Green Jobs

    Global warming alarmists often argue that transforming our economy to reliance on “green” sources of energy is good because millions of jobs will be created. These new green jobs, it is claimed, will drive our economy forward and create wealth.

    In Kansas, our governor believes in green jobs. She was a keynote speaker at a recent “Good jobs, green jobs” conference. Our likely incoming governor Mark Parkinson speaks the same language.

    A just-released study from the University of Illinois adds to the critical body of evidence that shows that many of the claims made about green jobs aren’t true. From the press release announcing this study:

    While acknowledging the importance of energy conservation and ongoing research and investment into new technologies, the authors set out to evaluate the fundamental soundness of green job claims. In aggregate, the academic team’s study concludes that a lack of sound research methods, erroneous economic assumptions and technological omissions have routinely been utilized to lend support, rather than provide legitimate analysis, to major public policies and government spending initiatives. Furthermore, the reports that were reviewed have been issued without the benefit of peer-reviewed analysis or transparency of their models and calculations. (emphasis added)

    Furthermore:

    Key findings of the study show that no definition for green jobs exists causing great discrepancy in how numbers are counted; that green job estimates often include huge numbers of clerical, bureaucratic and administrative positions that do not produce goods or services for consumption; and that problematic assumptions are made about economic predictions, prices and technology advancements leading some to ultimately favor mandates over free market realities. These serious flaws, as well as the failure to include technical data, render the prevailing green job estimates virtually unreliable.

    These are the myths identified by the authors:

    • Everyone understands what a “green job” is.
    • Creating green jobs will boost productive employment.
    • Green jobs forecasts are reliable.
    • Green jobs promote employment growth.
    • The world economy can be remade by reducing trade and relying on local production and reduced consumption without dramatically decreasing our standard of living.
    • Government mandates are a substitute for free markets.
    • Imposing technological progress by regulation is desirable.

    The study comes out of the University of Illinois College of Law. An article about the study with an easy-to-read (short) summary of the myths may be read by clicking on 7 Myths About Green Jobs. The full study is at Green Jobs Myths.

  • Wichita Eagle letter: coal and recycling

    A letter in the Wichita Eagle by a Mr. Steve Otto of Wichita (March 16, 2009) makes a few claims that require critical examination.

    The letter claims that “the rest of the nation is staying away from coal-burning plants.” Actual figures present a different story.

    In the document Tracking New Coal-Fired Power Plants from the National Energy Technology Laboratory, we see there are 28 coal plants under construction, 7 near construction, and 13 that have been permitted. That’s a total of 48 plants. Additionally, 47 plants have been announced.

    Otto also laments Wichita’s low participation in recycling, and refers to a study in Wichita comes in last. Ranking last in this regard, however, would be something to be ashamed of if it was actually bad to not recycle.

    My posts Recycle, If You Wish and No Recycling Mandates in Sedgwick County, Please shows some ways in recycling is harmful and a waste of time.

    The price system tells us all we need to know about the relative merits of recycling. In some cases the price system tells us that recycling is a beneficial use of resources. About 75% of automobiles are recycled, and used cardboard is often recycled in commercial settings. That’s because the price paid for these recycled items is high enough that, in these contexts, recycling can be profitable. That’s the price system at work. It tells us that the best use of an old car is to recycle it, and the same goes for cardboard boxes at the grocery store.

    A household setting is different. Households usually have to pay to engage in recycling. The prices that recyclers can get for these recycled goods doesn’t cover the cost of collecting them from households, as evidenced by the fact that in Wichita households must pay someone to pick up recyclables (although this may have recently changed as described in the news story Get paid to recycle. Residents pay a monthly fee, but earn points based on how much they recycle.). That’s the price system at work again. Its sober assessment is that in the context of households, recycling is a waste of resources.

    There is also the loss of personal liberty. With forced recycling, people have to give up activities that they value more than recycling to comply with the mandate. Additionally, we have to pay recycling fees or additional taxes to cover the costs of money-losing recycling efforts.

    So I’ll have to disagree with Otto that Wichita ranking last on this last is a bad thing.

  • Increased number think global warming is “exaggerated”

    A new Gallup poll shows that the trend in thinking among Americans over the past few years is that the news about global warming is exaggerated. “This represents the highest level of public skepticism about mainstream reporting on global warming seen in more than a decade of Gallup polling on the subject.”

    Even more Democrats are starting to believe that new about global warming is exaggerated.

    The poll, including charts, be be read by clicking on Increased Number Think Global Warming Is “Exaggerated.”

    I do sense a bit of bias in the story. Here’s a passage: “Americans generally believe global warming is real. That sets the U.S. public apart from the global-warming skeptics who assembled this week in New York City to try to debunk the science behind climate change.” (emphasis added.)

    Why did the story use the word try? Did Gallup cover the conference and make this judgment?

  • New York Times covers climate change conference before the event

    The New York Times reports on the International Conference on Climate Change before the event starts, and declares that “global warming’s skeptics are showing signs of internal rifts and weakening support.”

    Some of the Times’ criticism seems to flow from the fact that there is diversity in the ranks of climate skeptics. That seems to be more desirable than the lockstep in which warming extremists operate. After all, the science surrounding climate change is not at all certain, so to act as though the issue is settled is quite dangerous.

    The Times also criticizes the event by calling attention to who isn’t attending.

    But even this advance downplaying of the conferences isn’t enough for some Times readers. A comment left on one of the Times’ blogs said “The impetus for that probably came from the beancounters at the Times — it’s hard to believe their editors are that lame.”

    The Times blogs are the only place where the actual conference is covered. The “news” article Skeptics Dispute Climate Worries and Each Other was published before the conference opened. There doesn’t seem to be any reporting in the Times on what actually happened at the conference.

    Related: Read the opening remarks to the conference, delivered by Heartland Institute president Joseph L. Bast. More information about the conference and its proceedings may be read and viewed by clicking here.

  • Just a pause in warming?

    The Washington Post’s George F. Will reminds us that not too long ago — about 30 years — the New York Times was warning us of “the near certainty of calamitous global cooling.”

    Now Will alerts us to a Times story which tell us that “that the last decade, which passed without warming, was just ‘a pause in warming.’”

    But do we really know? The data is subject to a variety of interpretations, and as Will tells us, that data itself is often suspect:

    On Feb. 18 the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center reported that from early January until the middle of this month, a defective performance by satellite monitors that measure sea ice caused an underestimation of the extent of Arctic sea ice by 193,000 square miles, which is approximately the size of California. The Times (“All the news that’s fit to print”), which as of this writing had not printed that story, should unleash Revkin and his unnamed experts.

    Read it all by clicking on Climate Science in A Tornado.

  • Cap-and-trade costs consumers

    To solve the global warming crisis — to the extent that such crisis is real — alarmists often propose a cap-and-trade scheme. It seems like a reasonable solution, using the power of markets to let carbon emitters decide their preference between emitting carbon vs. reducing emissions.

    But it’s not so simple. As George Will has written: “Speaking of endless troubles, ‘cap-and-trade’ comes cloaked in reassuring rhetoric about the government merely creating a market, but government actually would create a scarcity so that government could sell what it had made scarce. The Wall Street Journal underestimates cap-and-trade’s perniciousness when it says the scheme would create a new right (‘allowances’) to produce carbon dioxide and would put a price on the right. Actually, because freedom is the silence of the law, that right has always existed in the absence of prohibitions. With cap-and-trade, government would create a right for itself — an extraordinarily lucrative right to ration Americans’ exercise of their traditional rights.”

    This benefit to government comes at a price to consumers. The George C. Marshall Institute has just released a study that estimates some of the increased costs that consumers will pay under likely cap-and-trade plans. It’s a lot. “Put another way, the cap-and-trade approach is the equivalent of a permanent tax increase for the average American household, which was estimated to be $1,100 in 2008, would rise to $1,437 by 2015, to $1,979 in 2030, and $2,979 in 2050.”

    To place these increased costs in perspective, last year the electric utility Westar proposed a rate increase of $10 per month for the average household in Kansas. That was met with strong resistance from consumer groups. When the City of Wichita proposed a $1 per month extra fee on water bills, one city council member worried about its effect on her constituents. These increases are far, far less than the extra costs cap-and-trade will impose.

    Read the short introduction to the Marshall Institute study by clicking on The Cost of Climate Regulation for American Households. A link to the entire study is there.